Let's Just Admit It, McCain Did Have A Good Month
By Erick Posted in 2008 | McCain — Comments (41) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
You know, we give John McCain a lot of flack here at RedState, but I can't really argue that the man has had a decent month.
He's gotten Chip Pickering of Mississippi on board. Senators Kyl and Thune are with him. Mitch Daniels is with him, though that might be an anchor. Frank Keating is on board -- I thought all Catholics were for Brownback, KLo excepted. And Jerry Sanders, the Mayor of San Diego is with him now too. That's a big one for Southern California.
While I think the South Carolina straw poll was actually not great new for him, this absolutely is. He's picked up a host of extremely prominent Californians to raise him money -- and they are all quite capable of doing so.
Oh, and let's not forget his non-straw polling. He may be trailing Rudy, but he's still ahead of the rest of the pack and the general public really likes the guy. I don't think it will be enough to get him the nomination, but with all the crap we pile on the man, we ought to at least be willing to point out he really has done well this past month, even with skipping CPAC.
Lest I forget, even Ramesh Ponnuru thinks conservatives will be giving the man a second look. But, now that they've put the man on the cover, he's toast.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The GOP will not nominate Bozo the Clown — Comments (6) »
Let's Just Admit It, McCain Did Have A Good Month 41 Comments (0 topical, 41 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
McCain is going to find out the hard way who actually votes in Republican primaries, actual conservatives, not voters in the mushy-middle. McCain has pissed too many conservatives off over the last 8 years, they just don't trust him.
If McCain tries to push his amnesty plan again, he'll be finished. Conservatives are more passionate about immigration enforcement then they are abortion.
The other Republican hopefuls would be smart to establish that they are to the right of McCain on this issue.
If Giuliani came out strong as an "enforcement-first" candidate on immigration, he would easily capture the nomination. Conservatives would be willing to overlook his liberalism on social issues and welcome him with open arms.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
But unfortunately for you, Giuliani is likely more pro-immigration than McCain if his NYC record is any indication. Back to the Tancredo drawing board.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
And not quite in keeping with Giuliani's tough "law enforcer" attitude/persona.
We need to be simultaneously pushing for enforcing the border with a physical barrier with a virtual barrier layered on top - and lifting all worker visa quota restrictions on top of that, while subjecting them to thorough security background clearance requirements.
We need The Pence Plan.
John McCain is going to have to start doing a lot more than rack up endorsements in order to win the GOP nomination. The heir of inevitability is gone from John McCain, and so all the people who don't like him are going to increasingly feel much less pressure to sign up with him or miss the train to the White House.
Right now, I think that McCain looks to be on track to bow out in September. It will then basically be a 2-man race between Rudy and Romney - and a significant number of Republicans are still (inexplicably) unaware of Giuliani's social and gun control positions, which will hurt him badly, I believe. More so, in the end, than Romney being a Mormon. In fact, Romney's faith and venture capitalist I think gives greater credence to the case that Romney is ideologically "coming home to roost" where his heart has always been on a variety of issues, if nothing else.
Now...wouldn't it be a brilliant move if Rudy asked Newt to jump in the race in the primary at the last minute to pull the carpet out from underneath Romney in exchange for being guaranteed a slot as the Vice President - with some guaranteed powers - in the Giuliani Administration? Brilliantly devious, of course, but brilliant nonetheless.
For whatever reservations I have about Rudy, ideologically and the harm he might do to the GOP brand name in association with social conservatism, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Giuliani would be a slam dunk to be the next president of the United States if he were the GOP nominee. And I don't mean slam dunk as in "there are WMDs in Iraq" slam dunk. I mean like Michael Jordan gliding through the air and slamming it home, breaking the backboard, "slam dunk." After all, he is cleaning all of the Democrats' clocks in theoretical matchups in Pennsylvania - and no Democrat can win the White House without winning Pennsylvania. So the prospect of becoming the next Vice President could be very, very alluring to Gingrich.
And did everyone see in Newt's latest "Winning the Future" that Giuliani was the first to take his pledge to agree to nine 90 minute debates in the 9 weeks leading up to the election with no rules whatsoever? Just a timekeeper and their ideas.
I also think that a Romney/Pence ticket would win, but it would be a little bit tougher battle. If the nominee is John McCain, I think we would surely lose in the same fashion Bob Dole lost in 1996.
There are a couple competing CWs about how the Republican primary will shake out the rest of this year.
1) McCain will fall off to nothing while Romney rises to become the anti-Rudy
2) Conservatives will take another look at McCain, wary of voting for somebody like Giuliani, and he will eventually rebound in the polls.
Ponnuru tells us that Rudy's at a high-water mark and McCain is at a low-water mark.
I think time will prove him generally wrong. That is...I can fully believe that a 3 top tier candidates' poll numbers will vary in coming months. But I don't think that McCain will ever experience any sort of rebound. I think he's finished.
Despite all the endorsements he's gotten, the voting public has turned away from him.
The early support for Giuliani from within the conservative ranks confounds a lot of political watchers.
If you peruse the liberal blogs, the general sense there is that they would rather not run against Giuliani, expecting him to be strong, and think conservatives are a bunch of ideological charlatans for supporting him in the numbers we do (many conservatives who don't support him share the sentiment).
Moreover, many people think that Giuliani's support will drop precipitously once the knives come out and he's hammered for not only his social positions, but his personal life.
I think they, too, will be proven wrong.
And I don't think it's so simple as to say that those conservatives who are supporting Rudy do so only because "he can win." In fact, I find that insulting.
I think people are genuinely inspired by his capacity for leadership, his backbone, and his experience in tackling the untacklable and coming out victorious.
I know that I am. Like most, I too have my differences with him. And those differences aren't unimportant to me. But ultimately they're outweighed by not only those issues where I do agree with him, but also with my confidence in his ability to lead a divided and threatened nation at a critical time in its history.
Time and again, the conventional wisdom is proven wrong. I think it will be again.
I believe that, generally speaking, McCain will fall off and become a non-factor, opening the door for Mitt Romney to become the viable alternative to Giuliani.
At the end of the day, I think it will be hard for either one of them to overcome Giuliani, though. He may not be a Reagan ideologically -- but I suspect that his penchant for leadership is every bit as strong as the Gipper's. And a time like this time, leadership may just prove enough.
I think that Giuliani is at his high-water mark right now because his positive attributes are well known to Republicans while his less-positive attributes are less well known. Ignorance is bliss, ain't it?
Giuliani's son's comments, which were none too flattering, certainly do not help Giuliani - and they will be in marked contrast to Romney's picture perfect family that, as sickening as it may be to some, seems genuinely as close to perfect as you could ever imagine.
Everyone knows about McCain, and they're rejecting him in increasing numbers, not decreasing numbers.
Again, you're talking about conventional wisdom...that is, "Rudy's bad points aren't well known among Republicans."
That may be true -- but it's not true simply because everybody keeps saying it. I tend to think, as much as anything, this is the emerging explanation for why Giuliani could surge as he has among not only Republicans, but conservative Republicans.
Consider the CPAC straw poll. These are people who were, ostensibly, very well-informed on Giuliani's negatives (or, at least, what most conservatives would consider negatives). And, while Rudy didn't win the straw poll, he was a strong second....and this without much in the way of effort to even win it.
Only time will tell on this. My suspicion -- and I'm proud to say that I'm typically more right than wrong about these sorts of things -- is that Rudy will continue doing very well....and people will continue saying "Well just wait until more people know about his social positions and divorces."
In other words, I think his strengths allow him to transcend such drags on his popularity. And Republicans who are apt to be wary of Giuliani because of his divorces or his strained relationship with his son would do well to remember something about that:
It's one more thing he has in common with Ronald Reagan.
And absolutely everybody was to the right of him.
So the question is, can Rudy win the GOP nomination with (theoretically of course) all of the party's liberals, a good majority of the party's moderates, and 17% of the pary's conservatives?
I guess we'll see.
I read where conservative secular republicans who don't attend church make up 42%-46% of the partys ranks. You also have the Centrist republicans who dominate in the heavily populated northeast parts of the rust-belt as well as in California in which the Schwarzenegger-Riordan wing of the party is very firmly in control. All Rudy or McCain have to do is get 1/3 of the social conservatives to win.
That 50% of those polled voted for somebody other then Romney, Rudy, or McCain. All though there's a long way to go, current conventional wisdom would suggests it could come down to these three, so there's a matter of how this 50% could distribute. Also, this from the CPAC poll:
"Giuliani is a highly acceptable second choice for those supporting other candidates. On a ballot combining attendees' first and second choices for the 2008 Republican nomination Giuliani came out on top:
Giuliani 34%,
Romney 30%
Gingrich 30%
Brownback 24%
McCain 20%"
The next release on fundraising figures will separate the men from the boys at this juncture more than endorsements and polls. Everyone loves a moneymaker.
Although John McCain is not my first choice of the "big 3" republican candidates, he has the most conservative voting record. And lets not forget that it has been John McCain who has vigorously supported GW Bush's Iraq war. Many of you here on Redstate claim that the Iraq issue is the biggest issue leading to 2008....well, no other candidate comes close to John McCain on that issue.
But one attribute that John McCain has that Rudy and Mitt will never have is a PURPLE HEART. McCain is a war hero who knows what battle is all about. It seems to me that if conservatives truly want a "war" president, McCain is the best candidate hands down.
As I stated before, MCCain is not my first choice, but what I don't understand is the blatant anger and disrespect so called conservatives have towards him. It usually goes something like this...."McCain cannot be trusted to carry out the conservative agenda, therefore we should go with Rudy Giuliani instead". Is that a smart or logical plan of action ? In your anger to stick it to McCain, you seem perfectly willing to vote for a liberal like Rudy who we already know is even less conservative than McCAIN.... IT DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE !
Come on people...McCain is not a perfect candidate, and he certainly has an independent streak. But of the big 3 republicans running this year, he is the only guy with a record which shows a long history of conservatism. Maybe not 100% conservative, but far more conservative than Rudy or Mitt.
I don't think that any candidate has been more brave on the subject of Iraq than John McCain because I think that his constituency - the press - was hoping that he'd be on their side so they could fawn all over him on the issue. But in reality, I don't think that he's actually stronger on the issue than any of the other candidates.
That he went against the grain of his core constituency - the Meet the Press crowd - however, does make his support the most brave. I give him that.
There are literally thousands of war heros, all the way from purple heart recipients to those who received the Medal of Honor. In my mind, any veteren is a hero for willing to serve their country, and possibly being called upon to pay the ultimate price in that service.
But being a good President requires far more skills and talents than just putting on a uniform and being brave under fire (or torture in McCain's case). It is the overall McCain package that I find troubling, not the "Patriotic, self-sacrificing war hero" portion that is, sadly, only part of the whole package.
I think it was Sean Hannity that said McCain was a Great American, just a lousy Republican Senator.
Many of you here on Redstate claim that the Iraq issue is the biggest issue leading to 2008...
McCain is a war hero who knows what battle is all about.
what I don't understand is the blatant anger and disrespect so called conservatives have towards him.
he is the only guy with a record which shows a long history of conservatism.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I doubt your sincerity
Adam C
You really seem to be a McCain apologist.
I'm not a single issue voter, and I'm not advocating that the Republican Party become some sort of xenophobic, Tancredo-type platform.
The McCain-Kennedy amnesty plan, however, is really crossing the line. A plan to give amnesty to 20 million illegal immigrants with full citizenship and Social Security benefits defies all known conservative principles. It is pure political pandering. I was reluctantly a McCain supporter until he sponsored this abomination of a bill.
I don't buy for one minute that the Republicans lost in 2006 because they were too tough on immigration.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Jacob Coulter said this >"The McCain-Kennedy amnesty plan, however, is really crossing the line. A plan to give amnesty to 20 million illegal immigrants with full citizenship and Social Security benefits defies all known conservative principles."
Jacob, are you aware that GW Bush will be signing an amnesty plan very similar to McCain/Kennedy ? Now that Bush has a democrat congress he will be able to get his amnesty plan through congress.
Are you also aware that Rudy Giluiani supports amnesty for illegals ? As does Romney. In fact, of all the candidates running, I'm aware of only two who oppose anmnesty. Duncan Hunter and Tancredo.
Duncan Hunter represents a San Diego district near the border and has been working on the immigration issue for over a decade. Illegal immigration is a very serious issue to conservatives, and it seems to be a very important issue to you Jacob. If so, you really only have two choices in the campaign because all the other candidates are closer to McCain on the issue than they are to you.
Personally, Tancredo is a one issue politician. Whereas, Duncan Hunter has a wide background on defense issues as well as the immigration issue.
Where did you get that idea? He supports plenty of "legal immigration", but is against granting amnesty. He has said this repeatedily on a number of occasions.
Do you have a reference where he states his support for amnesty?
I can't claim to be ideologically pure on the issue of immigration, I understand candidates have to make compromises on this issue. My biggest disappointment with Bush has been his stance on illegal immigration. That being said, I still consider Bush a good conservative that's worth supporting.
I also don't see any the other candidates being as blatantly pro-amnesty as McCain. I view this as the straw that broke the camel's back for my support of McCain. If Giuliani comes out to the left on McCain on this issue, I don't think I will be able to support his candidacy.
I have a very high opinion of Duncan Hunter, but I also care a great deal about electability. I fear the Clinton machine would tear a candidate like Duncan Hunter to pieces.
At the end of the day I'm a realist, I'm willing to make compromises in exchange for electability as long as the candidate has an overall conservative ideology, but I can only make so many compromises.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
take a look at some of the polls on Immigration. I checked them out the other day on pollingreport.com and it seems that there are about 65-70% of people in favor of allowing a path to legalization to illegal immigrants. This is essentially what your side has been calling amnesty. So it may not be practical to elect a pro "amnesty" candidate.
But the path to citizenship should be a long one. The 5 year clock (or 3 if the illegal is married to a US citizen) should not begin until the fines, back taxes, etc. are paid. I'll cave on "deport em all and good riddance" Tancredoism. I'll cave on deportation followed by immediate re-entry. I'll let them stay as long as their only crime is being here in the first place. We just need to know who they are and stop identity theft. Thats a priority. The other priority of mine is the fence. It has to be built over the entire border so we don't have to revisit this issue in another 20 years. I want legal immigration. I think Romeny said something along the lines of "If you finished top of your class at the India Institute of Technology, I want you here." I do too.
. . . like a fine or jail time that the person would have otherwise have had to pay. I’m not an immigration expert (too specialized of a field) but what penalty do people think that illegal immigrants would otherwise be paying had we enforced our existing laws* that they would be escaping otherwise?
About the only difference that I can see if that theoretically the people would be deported and then have to reenter the country. Since the bill co-sponsored by Senator McCain was limited to people who have lived and been employed in the country for four years, passed a criminal background check, paid any back-taxes owed (plus a fine) and could show that they spoke or were learning to speak English, it seems to me that these are the people who are least likely to have created problems and most likely to have some sort of roots in the United States.
In which case (unless there is some penalty that I’m missing and I’ll gladly be corrected if that’s the case) the people arguing against McCain’s proposal as an “amnesty bill” really do seem to be arguing in effect for massive deportation because AFAICT that’s the only “penalty” these people would have to pay under existing law.
* By “existing laws” I mean being the laws against being in the country illegally. It goes without saying if they break other laws such as laws against robbery, they would and are being prosecuted for that and there is nothing I’ve seen in any of the proposed immigration reforms laws which would change that.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
You're right, applying the "amnesty" label to the McCain-Kennedy immigration "reform" (or to Bush's) is misleading. It's far more generous than an amnesty, actually it's amnesty PLUS a cheap green card.
I support amnesty for illegal aliens, but I do not support cheap green cards for aliens.
In a normal amnesty, an offender is let off with no punishment (or reduced punishment) for his PAST offenses, but he is required to abide by the law henceforth. Amnesty is our current de facto policy to almost all illegal aliens that the INS takes custody of: i.e. the illegal alien is not subjected to any fine or imprisonment for past illegal conduct, but is only required to end his ongoing illegal conduct by getting out of our country (at least for a while).
McCain-Kennedy believes that our current amnesty policy toward illegal aliens isn't generous, and we need to reward their violation of our laws with cheap green cards.
footnote.*
Your argument might be defensible if the final bill had not gone on to offer actual amnesty for document fraud, willful tax evasion, identity theft, and the forgery necessary to facilitate these crimes, along with God knows what else I have forgotten.
minor felony amnesties. From his website:
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
Voting YEA would table (kill) the proposed amendment to prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security benefits. Voting NAY supports that prohibition, while voting YEA supports immigrants participating in Social Security.
Text of amendment:
To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity.
Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY because:
The Immigration Reform bill would allow people to qualify for social security based on work they did while they were illegally present in the US and illegally working in the US. People who broke the law to come here and broke the law to work here can benefit from their conduct to collect social security.
In some cases, illegal immigrants may have stolen an American citizen's identity. They may have stolen an American's social security number to fraudulently work. This amendment corrects this problem.
Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA because:
Americans understand that for years there are undocumented workers who have tried to follow our laws and be good neighbors and good citizens, and have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund.
Once that person regularizes his or her status, and as they proceed down the path to earned citizenship, they should have the benefit after having followed the law and made those contributions. That is fairness.
We should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts. That is not fair. It does not reward their hard work or their financial contributions.
The amendment proposes to change existing law to prohibit an individual from gaining the benefit of any contributions made while the individual was in an undocumented status. I oppose this amendment and believe it is wrong.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Immigration.htm
And the same site contains something unrelated that also needs to be public knowledge:
Give everyone in the world an opportunity to come to America
Those who live closest are the ones who can get here. Everyone in the world should have the opportunity through an orderly process to come to this country.
Source: AZ Senate Debate, in Tucson Citizen Oct 16, 2004
Words escape me.
Actuarially he could have been dead 9 years ago. Even if he were born today he couldn't expect to live to complete his second term. Will someone please give this guy a Depends endorsement deal and get him out of the race.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
If he were born today he would be two years old in 2008 and therefore inelegible for the Presidency.
by year of birth. Also, try standing on tippy toes when you read my stuff. Maybe you will get at least a glancing blow. :-)
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
But, now that they've put the man on the cover, he's toast.
Heh. That's funny. I mean really, it is. You make me laugh, Erick. I'm giggling so much I can barely type...
Congrats to Senator McCain on his good month. FWIW there are ten more to go...
:)
I've checked out most of the polling data regarding illegal immigration including such pollsters as Harris and Zogby. The results are that the majority of Americans OPPOSE illegal immigration and amnesty. The Zogby poll conducted in 2006 stated that 53% of Americans OPPOSE amnesty. In fact, in that poll only 13% of republicans supported amnesty. I've always wondered where the small percentage of republican amnesty supporters came from..now I know...Redstate.
As I stated before, GW Bush will most likely sign a democrat party written amnesty plan sometime this year. The Bush amnesty law will not be identical to McCain/Kennedy, but it will be amnesty for illegals no matter what you want to call it.
The establishment wing of the republican party is out of touch with the majority of the party on this issue. Thats why a relatively unknown candidate like Duncan Hunter could become a far more significant player as the campaign unfolds.
You asked about Romney's views on amnesty. I wouldn't want to call Mitt a flip flopper, but here is one qoute of his.
Mitt Romney ->"I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country,"
In 2006 Romney said he wants to see reforms that encourage illegal workers to register with the government, pay taxes and apply for citizenship...That sounds like amnesty to me.
Of all the current republican candidates, Romney's view on illgeal immigration is the most disingenuous.
trolls never seem to manage to be able to find the "Reply To This" button under a post to keep the comments alligned!
Usually when I'm replying to the current last comment in the thread. Got it right this time, though. At least I have the courtesy to reply to my reply with a redirect, instead of leaving it hanging there out of context. While I'm rambling, what 's the deal with "teh"? When I do it, it's just a typo, but I'm seeing it more and more on other blogs. Is it some kind of leetspeak or pwn thing...OK, nevermind, just checked, and it's both. I'd better watch what teh heck I'm typing.
Doug in Afghanistan. For starters, I am a Colorado life long retired Army Field Artillery Officer Vietnam vet Republican Attorney and a Mormon. Here is why I support John McCain:
1. We are in a war that will go for at least 20 years (even if the Iraq and Afghanistan phases were won before 2008) McCain is the only one who can lead us to success in the next eight years of that battle.
2. I believe McCain is right on Campaign Finance Reform. McCain-Feingold was not only the moral, right thing to do, it is clearly constitutional and has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
3. I believe McCain is right on Immigration. As a Coloradan, I am ashamed of Tancredoism-the McCain and Bush immigration proposals may not be perfect, but they are a step in the right direction
There are a couple of things I do not agree with McCain on-but He is head and shoulders above the rest, and only he can win. Winning may or may not be as important as how he stands on the issues-but it is a factor to be considered.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19668
He's done well with endorsements, and lining up some establishment support. But it's not just that he's trailing Rudy, he's losing ground pretty severely. He didn't earn a lot of good will by skipping CPAC either, and his "wasted lives" comment was straight out of Obama-ville. His campaign has really been rough so far.