McCain for President 2008
Sen. McCain is the most qualified, most electable, and most prepared to be President
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (109) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Maybe I'm late to the endorsement game as many of the other contributors and RedStaters have already chimed in. I have always been more sympathetic to Sen. McCain than other people at RedState. But for various reasons I don't make a decision until late in the game. I considered Mayor Giuliani and Sen. Thompson and was ready to support them at different points this year. But after a full reflection, I have concluded that Sen. McCain is the right man, in the right place, at the right time.
I am proud to join Charles Bird, Sen. Brownback, Gov. Pawlenty, Sen. Graham, Sen. Lieberman, Henry Kissinger, Phil Gramm, Sen. Jon Kyl, Rep. Shadegg, Gov. Keating, and over 100 generals and admirals in endorsing Sen. McCain for President.
Read on.
I leaned toward supporting Sen. McCain over Sen. Thompson before I had the opportunity to ride the straight talk express last month. If I listed my views on each issue and compared them to the major candidates, Sen. Thompson would probably line up as the best match. However, issues alone are not determinative of my support.
Sen. McCain has the experience, knowledge, and ability to reach beyond the Bush-Clinton partisan divide that has characterized our politics for 15 years. Sen. McCain's foreign policy and military knowledge and experience are needed in a post 9/11 world. His deep understanding of military affairs, his early support for the surge, his commitment to fighting the War on Terror, and his ability to persuade our fellow Americans that this is a war worth fighting are assets that cannot be overlooked in today's world and political environment.
Sen. McCain's deep knowledge of the challenges facing the country including the pending bankruptcy of social security, the horrendous embrace of pork barreling by both parties, and the international challenges in the post Cold War world is unmatched by the other candidates in both the primary and general election. Sen. McCain recognizes that the country distrusts and dislikes Congress and the government. He understands better than other candidates that the distrust is due to the politicians' embrace of self-serving pork-barreling and the use of a partisan lens on every major issue that must be addressed. Sen. McCain learned about this distrust in his handling of the illegal immigration question in 2007. He correctly realized that people do not trust the government when it says "we'll secure the border AND set up a guest worker program." So he is committed to winning back the trust of the people by securing the border, by working to address the major issues addressing the country, and by shutting down the pork barreling corruption in Washington.
Although some Republicans may not want to hear it, Sen. McCain's ability to work with Democrats is a benefit to him and the country. In a political environment where partisanship has led to abysmal approval ratings for both parties, Congress, and the President, the proven ability to work across party lines will help win non-partisan voters and accomplish more reforms once in office. In an environment where Republicans are less popular than any time since before Reagan's ascent, Sen. McCain is the best suited to reach out to voters who have left the Republican Party over the increasing Bush-Clinton partisan approach to politics. And even if Republicans are lucky enough to win the Presidency next year, Congress will almost assuredly be in Democratic hands. Thus, any major reforms, military actions, or other government action will have to be bipartisan. The country doesn't want two or four more years of the grid lock partisan setup that Reid, Pelosi, Bush, and Delay have pursued in recent years.
Finally, against Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama, or Sen. Edwards, McCain is not only the most electable but the best match-up for Republicans. McCain is conservative enough on most issues to pick up 90+% of Republican votes, but he is also the most popular politician among Independents. Against Clinton, McCain is the best positioned to run as the change candidate. The Clinton-Bush era is not popular among Independents and McCain's maverick reputation will make him the choice of the majority of independents despite the current distrust of Republicans among most Independents. Against Obama, McCain is the only Republicans who can neutralize the media-created image of "unifier." Despite the fact that Obama has down-the-line leftist views, the media has built on his rhetoric to make him the unifier of the country. McCain can neutralize that strength and will make Obama look so unprepared to be President that swing voters would be taking a big risk sending such an unqualified man to the White House.
Most importantly, a President McCain would begin a new era of Presidential politics. He would not be the head of the GOP the way Bush is. He would be a President for the whole country. At times this will strike a nerve with conservatives who will want McCain to be their President the way Bush has been, but for the country it would be good to have a less partisan President. And in a year where the Democrats have a 60-70% chance of winning the Presidency, Sen. McCain is likely the best chance for Republicans to avoid a Democratic sweep of the House, Senate and Presidency in 2008.
I support Sen. McCain for President in 2008 and I hope you will consider supporting him as well.
Two extra notes:
1) I will put any pro-McCain pieces in the diary after this, but my race analysis pieces will stay on the front page.
2) I am happy to answer any questions or explain my support for the Senator. But unlike many, I won't be trashing other candidates. I could support any of the major Rs in the general election and I especially like Sen. Thompson on the issues. He just doesn't have that undefinable something that makes Sen. McCain Presidential. I think it's a mix of experience, knowledge, and straight talk, but Sen. McCain has something that Sen. Thompson lacks.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | New Years Predictions — Comments (55) »
McCain for President 2008 109 Comments (0 topical, 109 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I agree with the general point, but no one needs to "grow up." There are legitimate concerns about some policy views of the Senator. The question is whether the perfect will be the enemy of the good... well I don't think "perfect" describes the other options. Nevertheless, the closeness of the primary is evidence that people are considering lots of options. That's good. I think McCain is the best positioned to win, but that should NOT be the only criterion.
Persuade, don't insult.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Using "Grow Up" in this context:
http://poligazette.com/2007/05/25/lets-grow-up-conservatives-progressive...
"“Let’s grow up, conservatives!”
Barry M. Goldwater’s declaration at the 1960 Republican National Convention was designed to quell a rebellion against Richard M. Nixon, whom conservatives saw as selling out to liberals on various platform planks. Goldwater’s next line was uncannily prophetic: “If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work.” Forty-seven years later, the conservatives whose cause Goldwater championed still dominate the Republican Party."
Just wanted to let you know it came off a little less than polite. But writing online sometimes does that when you don't have tone and body language to supplement the words.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
the conservatives whose cause Goldwater championed still dominate the Republican Party.
You're joking, right? The Party that Mike Huckabee could be leading any poll is the party that conservatives dominate? Please.
The Party that John McCain could be considered a front runner, not once but twice... Please.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
heh...class act pal, class act.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
I'm sick of this garbage. We're either going to be a conservative party or we're not. There's no way I'm going to vote for a compromiser, we need someone with someone who has backbone, not some politician!
I've heard McCain come under a lot of criticism, some of it justified, for the positions that he holds. But accusing him of having no backbone is beyond absurd. McCain has stood by wildly unpopular positions on principle, from his support for the War in Iraq and Comprehensive Immigration Reform to his opposition to deficit spending. You may not agree with hin on these issues, but to say that he has no backbone is very unfair.
As for the general thrust of your comment, I think that the attitude that "I'm not going to vote for a compromiser" is precisely what the author identifies as the problem. McCain's ability to reach out across the partisan divide -- to find common ground and split the difference -- may upset ideological purists within the party, but it is best for our country. The era of bitterly divisive slash-and-burn politics is hurting America.
Even from a pragmatic perspective, we need to learn to work across party lines. When we were in the majority, this sort of politics of exclusion worked for us. When you're in the majority, you don't have to compromise. But a committment to ideological purity and an unwillingness to compromise is no good for a minority party. It will only further marginalize our efforts to pursue pragmatic conservatism, and prolong our time in the wilderness by making us increasingly unappealing to the general electorate. If we want to win, we need to change how we play.
For all these reasons, I strongly agree that McCain, while perhaps not the best Republican, will certainly make the best President.
There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet
I get sick of this type of thinking. Our conservative ideas are either right or their wrong. If their right their will be by-partisan support. You don't have to broker when something is right for the country. Compromising gets nothing done other than to make it appear something is being done, and in turn only muddies the water (example illegal immagration this year).
"As for the general thrust of your comment, I think that the attitude that "I'm not going to vote for a compromiser" is precisely what the author identifies as the problem. McCain's ability to reach out across the partisan divide -- to find common ground and split the difference -- may upset ideological purists within the party, but it is best for our country."
You might have an argument in some respects, were it not for:
McCain-Feingold
McCain-Kennedy (even worse)
I'm sorry, I will never, ever support John McCain after he tried to stuff that amnesty garbage down our throats. I remember it taking the entire US population shutting down the Senate switchboard to put an end to that bill, and I will not ever accept its author as my torch-bearer.
It's one issue I will not compromise on, and I cannot believe there are so many Republicans willing to do such.
Our party, our constituents, and our nation deserve Romney. Or Thompson. McCain is just wholly unacceptable. I like the man. He's my 3rd choice. But that ain't saying much.
Yeah, I'm a pretty biased Romney fan. But that doesn't change a word of what I said.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
and have your purity party while the rest of us realize that the country is 35% conservative, 20% liberal, and 45% "moderate" (or more appropriately non-ideological). Conservatives can't win without some non-ideological voters. In 2006, those voters almost entirely jumped ship. I have not seen much in polls, anecdotes, or analysis that shows those voters have come back to the Republicans. Right now 2008 will look just like 2006 except it will include the Presidency.
If a pro-life, anti-pork, supporter of a strong national defense and our troops is not conservative enough for you, then go ahead and let purity block the most promising center-right candidate the Republicans have.
Finally, if you are looking for a backbone then you are overlooking your best choice. You may not agree with the Senator on every issue, but he sticks by his views and policies. He might as well be Senator Backbone and he appeals to Is b/c he isn't just "some politician."
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
and when the papers run a big headline that the GOP has had to layoff more of it's workers because donations are next to nothing then maybe you and others in this world will understand why we wanted a Conservative and not a Compromiser.
The more we continue to compromise on our base the sooner it will be that we look around and see that the party has nothing left to stand for.
I could not be more thankful for men such as yourself and McCain who have giving something very speical to this country, but I'm not refering to his military service!
That's just the best example. Standing up to Bush on Iraq took backbone. What he did on immigration took backbone. It's also the reason I'm not a supporter.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Don't worry, I'm unfailingly polite. :-)
This came up about a week ago, and I'll say it again. While I really do have the greatest respect for what Sen. McCain has done and suffered for our country, my show-stopper in the present political evaluation is his sounding like an acolyte of Al Gore on the matter of "global warming."
It's bad enough that AGW is at best an overhyping of statistical noise to reach "conclusions" that we're on the knee of a Venusian heat death - since the science is quite clear that this is simply not true.
AGW has become the delivery system of the Mob of Midgets (UN, EU, NGOs, Papua New Guinea, etc.) who are looking for some way to slow down America and drag us down to their level of political, military, and economic incompetence. The MoM has no real power to bend events, since their political, military, and economic incompetence is of their own making - for choosing not to keep up with us. So all they can do is yell and scream and hector and try to verbally intimidate us into surrendering to their overweaning mediocrity.
Our next President mustn't be someone who will kow-tow to this Mob of Midgets. Our next President must have the will to just tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine, and walk away from them....
This is the case McCain needs to make. Well thought out and well said.
----------------
Kevin Holtsberry
Managing Editor
www.StopHerNow.com
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
the border, but after it is done will he then deploy his Amnesty for the illegals that are here or will he flip on this and do something like Fred has proposed? I'm guessing amnesty and this is just wrong. I cannot support this man.
very true, and we need to understand that McCain is a) going to be our strongest general election candidate next year, and b) going to have to be watched very closely on any/all immigration issues. He says he "got the message" and we need to hold him to it.
to watch this video I took at a NH town hall where Sen. McCain explains his views on immigration. FWIW, I find his view sincere and not calculating. The bottom line is that he thinks we should secure the border (and have someone besides the feds determine the borders are secure) and then address those already here. He seems to be focusing more on a guest worker program than just granting citizenship, but he has focused more on winning back the trust of Americans than dealing with those already here. I will say that he would not support mass deportation, but what to do with those already here would probably be hammered out mainly in Congress.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
How is it that McCain gets such a free pass on immigration, this blog and countless others worked so hard to derail his and Kennedy's Amnesty legislation and not your willing to just sell it all out.
I find so ironic that McCain gets a free pass on this but Romney is called a liar for changing his mind. This party makes me sick!
First, "this blog" does nothing.
Second, my view on immigration is much closer to McCain and Bush so it probably isn't surprising that I like his views more than Romney.
And Romney did change his position on that and many other issues to try to win the election. And it may work.
McCain changed his approach to the issue but wants the same goal, both border security AND some form of guest worker program or earned legalization. I agree with that goal. I also think he is smart to work on border security first rather than working on the goals simultaneously b/c the country doesn't trust the government will actually secure the border.
So I don't know what "free pass" you're talking about. I think McCain may be able to secure the border better than other candidates b/c no one can claim he is anti-Mexican or has know-nothing views about immigrants. And everyone knows that he will lose a lot of support if he doesn't do things to actually stem the tide. That's not a free pass in my book.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I'm not sure at what point McCain got a "free pass" on immigration. He has been excoriated on this issue for 6 months or more, sometimes in terms that would peel the paint off the walls. I'm not sure that he has changed his mind on the issue at all, so much as recognized that there is a large segment of the party that wants the border secured, and wants it done yesterday. If that were done (and he has promised to do it) I think you will see immigration decline as a salient issue.
we have found that by using the laws that are already on the books illegals self deport...McCain being supported by Lindsay "your all racist's" Graham...yeah that will change my mind about him..(snark off)
John McCain is an AMNESTY candidate nothing more to say about him.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
You make some very good arguements. I'd much rather see a President Thompson than a President McCain but I am warming up to the guy. I believe what he says when he admits that he learned his lesson on shamnesty. I can't stand McCain-Feingold but we must admit McCain and Feingold didn't single-handedly pass the legislation. Our (R) legislature did and our (R) president signed it so I think they're ALL guilty.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
It's painfully obvious Giuliani miscalculated the impact his baggage would have on his campaign and it effectively sunk him. Unfortunately, his wife was a huge negative. Mitt overestimated his ability to smooth away the Mormon concerns, his flip flops, and I guess his perfect family. It reminds me alot of his failed attempt at the Senate, when Teddy Kennedy just bull dozed him. And Huckabee is nothing short of a disaster; another joker from Hope. The world is too dangerous for this kind of act. Thompson is Thompson; not sure what he is doing; I'm sure there's a place for him in the administration, if he wants, but this dog is not going to hunt. So that leaves McCain, clearly not my first choice (Giuliani), but if we're serious about keeping the Presidency, taking the fight to the terrorist, and having a strong hand on the controls, it's hard not to give him the nod. Now keep in mind, there will be a price, and it will be higher taxes. However, I believe he will bring the hammer down on spending which is long overdue. One last thing; assuming the Dems give it to Hillary; I believe McCain is the only one amongst the GOP candidates able to challenge her on her "experience", and do it without arousing the rath of the left for picking on their girl.
If I wanted to vote for a democrat, I wouldn't be republican.
I maintain he is someone different than the McCain I knew 15 years ago.
Check out the Real McCain by Patrick Ruffini.
http://www.patrickruffini.com/2007/12/30/flashback-the-real-john-mccain/
Senator McCain is the one Republican candidate that I will not vote for under any circumstances. I don't think I need to go into the reasons why. I'm sure you're well aware of them and have dismissed them in the name of "electability".
If you think that the Senate is wishy-washy enough now, a McCain nomination will multiply that tenfold, because they'll all see that trashing conservatives for TV time worked. It will do enormous damage to the country. A Hillary presidency would hopefully only do four years of damage, a McCain nomination would do decades.
Everyone make a donation to Senator McCain today!
"A Hillary presidency would hopefully only do four years of damage, a McCain nomination would do decades."
I've seen this written before, but never backed up. Explain please.
It's basic economics. Incentives work. McCain spent quite a few years looking for opportunites where he could go against the Republicans, all in the name of TV time. He cherished his "maverick" reputation, and went to great lengths to keep it and enhance it.
This had the benefit of MSM approbation, offset by the opposition to him by the people who he ran over with his 'Straight Talk Express' bus.
So now, we're supposed to forgive all of that, in order to oppose Hillary. But if we do, what's the message that the weaselly Senators are going to take from this? That there's simply no downside to trashing conservative ideas, and tons of benefits. And incumbent Senators are ridiculously hard to get rid of. So the handful of Senators who take this to heart will take many more years to get rid of, and probably have to change hands over to the Democrats first.
Please.
Either prove this is his motivation of shut your mouth.
Was it his desire of TV time that led him to break with the party calling for the firing of Rumsfeld and the implementation of a new strategy in Iraq?
How EXACTLY did calling for MORE troops in Iraq, while support for the Iraq war was virtually non-existent, make him the darling of the MSM? If anything this policy position endangered his his status with the media and his chances at the whitehouse. But he stood up anyways, for no other reason than he thought it was right for America, and I've got no reason do doubt his motivations as President would be any different.
He did all this while Fred Thompson was sitting on a Law and Order set being pampered with make up.
Of course I can't prove that was his motivation, any more than I can prove that Romney's beliefs always seeming to match what he needs to get elected are political expediency. But Occam's razor suggests that both are true.
Of the MSM was his opposition to the majority of his party on MSM favorite issues like BCRL, Amnesty, AGW, Gang of 14, tax cuts, etc.
What kept him from losing MSM support because of Iraq is that he always prefaced his support for victory with MSM-favored sound bites like "Bush blundered," "ditch Rummy," and "torture."
John is a very low 3rd on my list, and if someone could show me how Rudy would win any of the big blue states, John would drop to 4th.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Hillary is better (or at least not as bad) then McCain because McCain hasn't been with conservatives 100% on every issue? Because some ink-stained wretches in the MSM don't actively, viscerally hate his guts? I'm sorry but that is simply bizarre.
Can you show me a candidate currently running that a) has been with conservatives 100% on every issue and b) has the slightest snowballs chance in hell of winning?
Just that she would do less long-term damage to the country. And you're right that none of the candidates are 100%. But look at Giuliani, for example. It's obvious that he respects the conservative ideals even where he disagrees with them. McCain, on the other hand treats anyone who disagrees with him with total contempt. For example, see the way he treated Senator Cornyn during the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill debacle, or the say he treated evangelicals during the 2000 primaries.
"Just that she would do less long-term damage to the country."
When you think of the 'damage' that Hillary could do, what comes to mind. What comes to mind with McCain? Examples and specifics please.
"But look at Giuliani, for example. It's obvious that he respects the conservative ideals even where he disagrees with them."
I'd like to say that I give Rudy **huge** credit for taking NY from "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" territory that it was in the late '80's and early '90's. But the simple fact remains is that if he is the nominiee, some non-trival (and large) number of social cons stay home. Perood.
"For example, see the way he treated Senator Cornyn during the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill debacle"
Give me a break. Do you think that Senators, governors, congressmen, presidents don't have tempers? Just among post-war presidents, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton had legendary bad tempers, and the torrents of off-color language to go with it. So McCain cusses like...a sailor.
Go figure.
"he treated evangelicals during the 2000 primaries." He treated certain evangelical "leaders" during the primaries, and quite rightly so. You do recall the post 9-11 Robertson/Falwell (the two leaders McCain singled out by name after the 2000 SC primary) "god is punishing America" nonsense? A great number of so called 'evangelical leaders' regularly beclown themselves, and I see nothing wrong with calling them on it.
As CIC, the long-term damage she could do is basically limited to judicial appointments. Which, I grant you is a big one. Everything else can be overturned by succeeding administrations. Looking at stats, about 10% of the article 3 courts turn over in a typical four year administration. And a good number of those that would choose to retire in a Hillary administration would be liberal judges, seeing it as a good opportunity to retire. So while there's an opportunity cost there, replacing one liberal judge with another one isn't a net cost.
The damage a McCain nomination would bring would come from the message it sends to the more liberal of our Republican Senators. A good handful of them would be likely to take the message that it's not only safe to cross party lines, it's beneficial to do so. So then suddenly we don't need 51 Republican senators. We need 55. And 41-42 senators wouldn't be enough to hold a filibuster. And liberal Republican senators are a ton harder to defeat than presidents.
McCain himself is the biggest example of this - with his Gang of 14 debacle that prevented conservative nominees from being approved all in the name of comity.
Adam I have a lot of respect for you and therefore your decision here but I must admit it troubles me.
I hope as conservatives we aren't so obsessed with winning at all costs that we lose our political soul in the process.
Is my view a bit reactionary and overblown, sure, but it does shed light on what I see is an emerging problem in the GOP that's been creeping in on the Party for a while now.
Great things can be accomplished from the minority and losing an election or two by not compromising your principles can strengthen your resolve.
McCain is just too quick to compromise on a host of issues that are near and dear to heart of the Party. From Taxes to immigration and from Kennedy to Feingold, I'm not sure he has what it takes to transition from Senator to President.
Anyway we'll have to see how this plays out. I really hope your wrong here because I can't in good conscious vote for John McCain -- if he wins the nomination I'll be writing in Moe Lane for president.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
I have no idea how conservatives are rallying behind a guy who does not believe in tax cuts and could not on multiple occasions understand that we are a sovereign nation with laws regarding citizenship and our borders.
I don't care if the guy fought in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf. That, to me, is unacceptable.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
McCain is not what he used to be, I expect he will be out shortly after NH.
Of all 5 candidates, McCain is my #5. I would vote for him if he's the Republican nominee, but it would not be an easy thing for me to vote for him. I feel like he is a RINO and spit in the faces of true Republicans too many times! I do respect his service to this country, but I don't want him as my President.
I'm a relative rhetorical neophyte here, but are you saying that if someone is moderate that they do not function under an ideology or have an ideological approach to their voting or beliefs?
I'm not offended mind you, just trying to sort out how you are using the word. Perhaps I need to check my dictionary.
But it would concern me (as a moderate) to know that my benevolent contributors here at RS consider me without ideas or conveniently ideologically avoidant just because I dont place my beliefs in a single ideology of their recognition. Are moderates always not to be trusted??
I think there is a general sense that "moderate" is not an ideology since it is defined by where liberals and conservatives are. There are many non-ideological voters who choose positions on each issue separately rather than as a part of a coherent philosophy. Also there are ideological voters who are not liberal or conservatives, of which libertarians are probably the best known.
For short-hand, liberal, moderate, and conservative is often used. But this one dimensional perspective misses a lot. "Moderates" are not usually just in the middle on issues. Often they are left on some issues and right on others. Some are uninformed and vote based on height, how coiffed a person's hair is, or how in tact the candidate's home life is. It's wrong to throw all these voters into some big "moderate" pool. But almost all "moderates" agree that they don't like ideological or partisan leadership. So I thought non-ideological was a better term than moderate.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Nothing would bring me more pleasure than to deny McCain the presidency one more time.
you make a strong argument for McCain. Despite my many problems with McCain on issues and temperment, I conceded to pilgrim over the weekend, that after Fred, I would be comfortable with him in the living room for 4 yrs and that I certainly would sleep well knowing he was defending us.
I am not going to re-hash my problems with him here. I, like you, would enthusiastically support any of our remaining candidates against any Dem. Heck, I would even vote for Ron Paul for the fun of seeing a budget vetoed!
But I certainly respect McCain as a true American hero. I know he would defend America and would never mar the Office.
God bless
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
And a good case for McCain, who is my second choice.
and he established relationships with those on the other side of the aisle to get things done. McCain's approach is similar, and we're going to need a president who can both use the bully pulpit and work with the Democratic majority to move legislation in a conservative direction. The Bush administration took the confrontational tack, and all he got was tax cuts, a flawed education bill, and McCain-Feingold.
Speaking of McCain-Feingold, I consider the bill a blot on McCain's record, but no candidate's record is perfect. I also agree with you, Adam, that Thompson is better on the issues but McCain is superior on the intangibles and on the War Against Militant Islamism.
There are quite a few Republicans who have dismissed McCain out of hand. All I would ask is that he be given a second look. If you're going to take the other candidates at their word, McCain should be given that same courtesy.
When Reagan compromised, it was to get half a loaf rather than none at all. With McCain, it's always him who's cutting the conservative end off of the loaf. That's not compromise, it's doing the other side's negotiating for it. And that's the problem - regardless of what compromises become necessary, we want to know that our guy will at least be pulling from our side. That simply isn't McCain. Nobody who already wants higher taxes for us, and more easy citizenship for current illegals, is pulling for our side.
Look - in the end, we get one candidate for President. If the best we can get is McCain, then there's no point being a Republican any more -- the conservatives will have already lost. That's why I wouldn't walk the 2 blocks to my polling place to pick McCain over Hillary. If those are the choices, the game's already over -- The best that could then be hoped for would be to have the Democrats wear the blame for how the next 4 years go. Then maybe, if there's anything left of America by then, the rump GOP will actually nominate someone who agrees with us.
Adam C, thanks for the excellent post. I am still supporting Fred, but if Fred does not win SC then I will have to follow my 2nd choice, which is McCain, mainly due to your posts recently. I definitely do not agree with everything McCain supports, but I feel he would still be someone that I could support, more so than Romney, Rudy or Huck.
I do have one thing to add to your post. McCain (and Fred) are the only candidates serious about entitlement reform. In the next decade or two, if entitlement reform has not occurred, we will all have huge tax increases. McCain deserves real respect in trying to handle entitlement reform.
I do not see him as the most electable. He's just like Dole in '96: an over-the-hill Senator who has admirable military experience but is otherwise lackluster as a candidate.
McCain blew it with me when he sponsored the failed McCain-Kennedy bill. That was a poor piece of legislation that not be forgotten.
He has no managerial experience whatsoever and Club For Growth gave him the worst review of any candidate in this race.
I simply do not see the appeal in settling for McCain, the man who was John Kerry's first choice as a running mate in 2004.
"Politics is the business of trying to convince fools to do the right thing."
-Braden Pace
"lackluster as a candidate."
Love him or hate him, that charge just won't stick. McCain is a very good candidate, both on the stump and in debates.
That label most definitely sticks.
McCain blew the single issue where Republicans have the strongest advantage over the Democrats in the minds of the American people:
The US border and our national sovereignty.
McCain is an old grouchy man who has back-stabbed the party plenty enough. Lackluster? Absolutely.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
Just b/c you don't see him as more electable than Dole doesn't make it true. I must have missed the time when Dole was the most popular politician among independents and swing voters. I know some people don't vote based on a long study of the issues, but the "he's too old" isn't why Dole lost and it wouldn't sink McCain any more than it sunk Reagan. If you can't see the difference between Dole and McCain then you aren't looking past age.
Second, the CfG did not give him their worst review. First of all they didn't rank the candidates. They looked through the records and found mixed results about most candidates. Except for Huckabee, who they found was absolutely abysmal. They opened up early and often in attacking Huckabee for his record and views on fiscal issues. Although there is no official ranking, CfG has explicitly opposed only Huckabee.
Finally, I'm not settling for McCain. I think he is the most qualified, most experienced, and most electable Republican in the field. That's not settling for me. He has a biography, a backbone, strong beliefs, a conservative impulse, and a desire to lead the whole country in a honorable way that emanates from his military service. I agree with the Senator on immigration, pork barreling, corruption, foreign policy, entitlement reform, and a dislike of reflexive partisanship. This isn't settling for me.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
My vote will come down to whomever is in better position to win the nomination between McCain and Rudy on February 12th.
McCain has made quite a leap in my book in the last couple of months.
"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly
Adam among all the contributors to RedState you're not the flashiest or the shrillest or the most profligate and prolific. You're not the most ideological and you're also not foolish. You take those numbers seriously and I don't believe you're incorrect; it just saddens me personally a little to admit it.
Americans are a conflicted bunch: we love righteous underdogs but we also worship winners. We want independence and self-reliance but we also want government guarantees and fallbacks, in case we slip up or decide to slack off. We want to be the leaders of the world but we don't always want the baggage that comes along with it. The list is endless.
McCain is the Solid Middle Choice in this election. I won't be terribly disappointed if he wins the nomination; I won't be doing handsprings, but I'll put signs in the ground for him as a Republican. I don't think he'll screw anything up too badly as President.
I like Romney for a lot of reasons, some of which are personal, and some of which are a matter of personal identification that not everyone shares (and indeed some people perceive in just the opposite sense than I do). I would be thrilled to have Romney as the nominee and my dander would be up to fight for him and to help him win. I'll be a little more lackluster if McCain gets the nod, but I won't take a long, slow, solitary walk into the ocean, either.
I think it's apt that one of the reasons McCain is such an attractive candidate is that Americans (or at least a significant demographic slice of them) are fatigued by the bitter partisanship of the past eight years because many of them are essentially nonideological. They want someone competent. They want someone strong. They want someone with experience. They generally like their lives but are always willing to gripe. He's the candidate to capture the middle of limited horizons, there's no doubt about it.
He's the Vanilla Republican Canidate of 2008. Maybe America needs some plain Vanilla right now.
Nice post.
... where you would demonstrate far more political charity than I! First time for everything, I suppose.
Heh - Happy New Year.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
It's been a long strange trip these past three years and I'm sure it's going to continue to be one. Romney is still my first choice but there has always been, in the back of my mind, what I've called the Inescapable Hypothesis when it came to John McCain. My Dad doesn't like it, either. :)
Nobody passionate likes to read numbers objectively and find out they might be incorrect despite all their hopes and wishes -- I know I certainly don't. But there is a logic to McCain, as dismal as that logic might sound to some people here on RedState.
And in the end, I don't think it'll work out that dismally if he wins. He's still a million miles ahead of anyone on the other side (or at the bottom) of the Big Ditch.
I bear the man no ill will. He's a survivor. He doesn't light my world on fire and he doesn't make me want to stand up and cheer, but I'm not going to boo, I'll clap right along with every other Republican if we hold the White House.
Adam, I agree and appreciate all of your comments regarding Sen. McCain. Let me add one comment regarding his stance on immigration. I have had the honor of knowing McCain for over a decade. When he says that he, "got the message," I can tell you that he means it. He will secure the borders FIRST. Period.
As a life long GOP conservative (I went to my first Reagan rally in 1980 when I was 7), I believe that McCain represents everything that we should want in a candidate. Has he been perfect? No. But who is? The reality in today's political world is that someone that would be the "perfect candidate" by our standards would get smoked in the general election. Quite frankly, our party has failed us in many ways. One of which is spending. We have failed miserably to control spending. With all do respect to our President, it took him nearly 7 years to figure out that maybe he should take a stand against the spending spree Congress has been on. McCain is the only candidate who would stand up against the tax and spenders who want to do nothing more than take our bank accounts from us. And as far as some of the comments about his stance on taxes, I don't agree with the votes he made against the Bush tax cuts, but as with immigration, he has said that he was wrong and that the tax cuts should be extended. At least it's refreshing to know a candidate who can stand up and admit that they were wrong or "got the message."
Finally, McCain is the right man for the right time. Nobody else on the GOP side has close to the experience or the knowledge on foreign policy than McCain does. Do we really need want someone in the White House RIGHT NOW who has never served in uniform, barely talked to a foreign leader, and would have a huge learning curve? I certainly hope not.
Senator McCain represents the candidate with the most experience to lead our nation in a time of crisis and will stand up to the leftist tax and spend liberals in Congress.
THE MAC IS BACK!!!!
P.S. After all he endured over the summer with money troubles and losing staff, everyone proclaimed him dead on arrival. He didn't complain. He took the blame, picked up his head and continued to fight, mounting a gorilla campaign. As a result, he is tied in most NH polls and is leading nationally in another. This says a lot of about the kind of man he is and what we as a party should desire in a President.
call this man dead and watch him keep fighting. It tells a lot about the kind of man he is, and the kind of President he will be.
I am one of the "undecided." I have flip flopped from Rudy to Fred to McCain to Romney and back again 10 times. I, personally, really like Duncan Hunter but dark horses don't get my attention long.
Your argument or supportive endorsement hasn't made up my mind but it has tilted it a bit towards McCain. And I have one other gnawing reason for leaning towards McCain. My governor here in The People's Republic of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, has been a shining light for all Republicans in this land. Governor Pawlenty has been steadfast in cost control and aggressively endorsing the War in Iraq in a state where I swear Mao Tse Tung would feel uncomfortably conservative in...and Tim Pawlenty is a big supporter of McCain (and on his campaign staff). I have to ask myself...if Tim Pawlenty, who I respect greatly and am sure will sit in the Oval Office one day, so believes in McCain, why shouldn't I?
I'm not there yet but you have made a strong case, Adam. Well done.
He was up to 3rd place in my rankings, but with his Kerry-style nuanced position on tax cuts, he is back in 4th. I'm not going to vote for a guy (in the primary) who won't support tax cuts. I thought maybe he had seen the light, given that he now supports the renewal of the very same tax cuts he opposed, but he still thinks he was right to vote against them in the first place. He doesn't even get credit for consistency and honesty on that one. No thanks.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I couldn't stand McCain in 2000, but I've warmed to him in the last few months. Mostly because of his experience and because he would clearly be the best candidate in the general. Nominating Huckabee or Rudy will tear the party in two. (Disclaimer: I would hold my nose and vote for Huckabee, but would never pull the lever for Rudy.) While I'd love to jump on the Fred bandwaggon hee at Redstate, I don't think he is really a viable candidate in either the primary or the general. So, I see McCain as the only realistic hope to avoid the damage a Rudy or Huckabee nomination would cause.
Will I support John McCain to be the GOP nominee. He's a socialist. Basically, what's being argued is that when liberal Democrats take over we need a Liberal Republican to help.
Three other choices are viable to win the nomination.
Who then are you going to vote for?
HuckaFraud
Rudy
Mitt
That's it, and Fred will be dropping out soon, right after coming in 5th to Darth Paul in Iowa and 4th in NH.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Can we please stop throwing around the socialist label, when we have what amounts to a difference of opinion? McCain is not a socialist, nor is Huckabee.
"We're hoping for the best, but we need to prepare for the worst." -Fred D. Thompson
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
for whom I will NOT cast a vote. Ever.
President who will bring institutional strength and popular support to our war on terror, as Ike did to the cold War. Truman was a hothead, a partisan, a divisive President who nevertheless like Bush got the big decisions right. We are now in a situation like America in 1952 -- when we chose a President (Eisenhower/McCain)who was entirely admirable, patriotic and strong in the belief he would do the right thing, against the charming intellectual(Stevenson/Obama).
Bush, like Truman in dealing with aggression by the USSR, did the right thing in going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he has never had strong national support for these wars. He has chosen to fight these wars (again, necessary) as Republican wars. What we need now is a figure who can unite Americans behind our effort in the war on terror.
This is John McCain. A man who commands the admiration of all Americans for his unswerving patriotism, his astute judgement on the conduct of the war, his fearless criticism of the failure of the original strategy.
The ability to get support from Democrats and independents is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of strength. With McCain as our candidate, we will achieve an electoral majority that will support our efforts in the war on terror, a war we must win.
Thanks for the excellent post, Adam!
John McCain showed he has lost any backbone he may have had by caving in on the amnesty question. He sold his soul to Ted Kennedy, then when they got their butts kicked by Mr. & Mrs. Rank and File he had an epiphany and now realizes we need to control our borders. Does one seem a little cynical if they think that his running for president and his fear of losing anti-amnesty voters was the direct cause of his spiritual conversion? That was lack of backbone.
Why doesn't he show the same disdain and arrogance now that he showed when he was sucking up to Teddy Kennedy, and never dreamed we could stop their backstabbing immigration efforts. That is lack of backbone.
McCain is a radical and is absolutely unpredictable. He would be a disaster if elected President.
McCain has always believed that the economic success of the United States depends on free trading markets, including free labor markets. He believes that our incredibly low quotas for unskilled labor artificially distort the labor market, and that without the black-market of illegal immigrant labor, it would drive up wages, prices, and inflation. This has not changed.
His so-called "epiphany" was not a repudiation of this belief, but rather a recognition of political necessity. He now supports border security measures in addition to the guest worker program that he advocated, and furthermore recognizes that as a political necessity, in order to gain the trust and support of the American people, that needs to come first.
The fact is that there are two seemingly disparate goals in tension here, both of which need to be met. We need to provide for the integrity and security of our borders, and the need to fulfill our economic needs by allowing American employers access to the low-skilled labor market that drives whole sectors of our employment. Allowing our border to remain de facto open threatens our national security, while the mass deportation of 12 million workers would cause important sectors of the American economy to collapse.
We need to secure our borders and also find a way to allow legal immigration, either through increased permanent immigration quotas or through a temporary guest-worker program. But support for one half of this equation doesn't preclude support for the other. We can have both Rule of Law and the Free Market.
The fact that Senator McCain chooses, as a matter of political necessity, to prioritize the former over the latter doesn't mean that he has forsaken his position. If anything, his continued support for a GWP in addition to border security shows a great deal of backbone, especially in light of the political pummeling he's taken as a result.
There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet
I've mentioned this before, and so I apologize for sounding like a scratched CD, but for me the only truly salient question in this day and age is which candidate would make the most competent commander in chief.
I like Giuliani, Huckabee, and others for various reasons, but the only name that my heart and mind come up with in response to this critical question is MCCAIN.
I understand the frustration that some of McCain opponents feel about campaign finance reform and a handful of other issues. The McCaiNyets, of course, take some of these criticisms too far (e.g., the view expressed above that Hillary - HILLARY! - would be a better choice than McCain).
But on the core issue of protecting our nation from our enemies in the Middle East and elsewhere McCain is our man.
Happy new year to everyone.
Fortunately, it will not be McCain. He will be nominated by the Dems before he is by the GOP, and that is both simply a fact, as well as how it should be. If it weren't so, I wouldn't sleep at night. But it is.
That said, if he WERE nominated by the GOP, this lifetime Republican (unbroken back to Ford) will turn in his GOP card and not vote this year. Yes, kids, even if it means Hillary in the big chair. We'd just have to make sure there was a hell of a racket (like when Meiers was up for the SCOTUS, and when amnesty was recently almost passed) all the time and make sure she gets nowhere on anything at all. Awful? Yes, it would be. Bad, maybe even catastrophic for the nation? Of course. These aren't good times to have a worthless president. Probably bad for the GOP in the near and mid term as well, because we would be seen being forced to resort to desperate measures, for at least 4 years. It would not be pretty. I wouldn't wish it on a dog. But it is better than a GOP in charge that could ever think McCain was its man. If that day ever comes, it's 3rd party time.
Now, you can hate me for saying it. Have a ball, I certainly won't feel anything. But if you're a McCain supporter and actually consider yourself a Republican, I'd say your time would be better spent asking yourself how many of me there are. Yes, he would get 90% of the GOP vote; who else would they vote for? But that 90 would be half the number of voters that normally turn out on the GOP side. The rest would stay home in disgust, and then go form a new party. As I said, I don't wish it to happen. But if it must (and McCain as GOP nominee would mean that it must) then so be it.
Actually, McCain on the ballot would probably be Bloomberg's best shot. Not that I want THAT to happen, but without a Republican running, who else would Republicans vote for?
Nah. On second thought, Republicans don't protest vote. Meaningless gestures are for Democrats. Republicans would simply stay home. I know I would.
I simply don't believe that on the eve of election night, that you won't realize the consequences of the Democrats controlling the Executive and the Legislative branches. Upon coming to this realization, you will vote for the Republican nominee the next day, even if it is McCain.
I support McCain (not without reservations), and I wonder how you can rationalize saying that my Republican credentials are more doubtful than yours, when you would be giving a vote to the Democratic candidate by your refusal to participate. It doesn't help the conservative or Republican movement to give away the next election, and then likely the following three.
"We're hoping for the best, but we need to prepare for the worst." -Fred D. Thompson
To your first statement, I would say 'try me', except that I stand by MY first statement, that McCain will sooner be nominated by the Dems. But should it happen, ...try me.
As to the "conservative or Republican movement", if McCain is the GOP's man, then the conservative movement will have to go on without the GOP, because the GOP will have decided to have nothing to do with it anymore. Yes - as I said, it would be highly regrettable, and I would take no pleasure in it. It would be a tough slog, and take a lot of time we can't really afford, all while people who actually *admit* to being Democrats were in charge. It would be hell. But I'm only one man, and I can't stop the GOP from committing suicide by myself. You play the cards you're dealt. Crying about it never does any good.
I'm not the sort who votes out of partisan strategy. I'm historically a Republican because historically, they have represented my values. If the Dems did, I'd be a Dem - there's no religious value in the words to me. If the GOP were to pick McCain to carry the banner, there would simply no longer be a party that represents my values, and in that eventuality, I would simply have to wait for one to coalesce, and pray that somehow, the Republic survives in the meantime. I don't play 'lesser of 2 evils' - I simply vote for people who back my values, and don't vote for those who don't. If the time came when nobody did, then I simply would find other things to do on election day. As I said - Republicans don't protest vote. We get on with our lives and try to make the best of it.
Bottom line: If it's Hillary or McCain by Oct '08, it won't be a matter of stopping the disaster - the disaster will have already occurred. It'll be piece-picking-up time. Voting McCain because of the 2 candidates he's the one who at least *claims* to be a Republican, would be an act of deliberate self-delusion, when a cold-eyed facing of facts was what was called for.
His singing of Streisand's music needs work LOL this clip I found on YouTube is from his Saturday Night Live appearance a few years ago
not a conservative republican party. McCain is anything but a conservative. I would rather lose than have someone like McCain or Huckabee as the standard bearer of the republican party. they are both liberals and I am tired of getting sabotaged from within. I would rather know who the enemy is than have our "leaders" sell out the conservative principles
Does that concern anyone? The Dems will be spending hundreds of millions in the general election.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
against the storm of money the Dems will surely spend?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
No, but only if he secures the nomination and uses this as an "issue". No special interest of any kind money driving his campaign.
Hard to say if it would be much of an issue, but McCain could make it one.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
I hate to think that our electoral process now boils down to who has the most money, but maybe that is just a reality of the process. I like McCain and plan to vote for him in the primary, but I just read the Obama and Hillary have both raised over $100 million, each!
I guess the question is then, do we vote for Romney simply because he has shown the most ability at raising funds?
"We're hoping for the best, but we need to prepare for the worst." -Fred D. Thompson
There are several reasons to support Romney over McCain other than money. Immigration, Taxes, and McCain-Feingold chief among them.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Can you imagine a conservative donating to McCain?
McCain has been sticking it too the conservatives for the past 15 years, beginning with his plan, McCain-Feingold, to shut up conservative voices.
Why on Earth would conservatives now say, "Hey, I think I'll donate one thousand dollars to John McCain's campaign."
It makes no sense.
McCain is basically a Joe Lieberman liberal. He's liberal on global warming, tax cuts to stimulate the economy, Democrat judicial filibusters of conservative judicial nominees, gun control, the "evilness" and "intolerance" of evangelical Christians like Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell, amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I'd keep writing but I am getting carpel-tunnel syndrome talking about the issues on which McCain has put a finger in the eyes of conservatives.......
Of course his campaign is broke!
Sorry, but McCain's stand on illegal immigration is a deal breaker. Him or Hillary--I wouldn't care which was in the White House. The country's screwed with either. I just don't get excited enough about abortion or gay marriage to get too worked up over those issues. The issues I care about, immigration and national security, are pretty much the same with Hillary and McCain.
I'm delighted to see McCain pulling ahead. He's the best GOP candidate and one of the few candidates who can undo some of the mess left behind by Wolfowitz and other neocon incompetents.
The best GOP candidate if you happen to be a Democrat. You want him, get the Democrats to put him up. Folks over to The Nation would probably be down with it; Heck, he agrees with them on pretty much everything.
Look, it really is the only way. Wait and see. Then again, when he loses, they'll just start in with the conspiracy theories, won't they? Someone will have done him dirty, wait and see, folks. The last refuge of the man who just plain got it wrong: It will have to have been sabotage, and you heard it here first.
In the end, the GOP will nominate someone most of them think is a, wait for it, Republican. Nobody thinks McCain is. Sure, some people LIKE that about him, but they're not Republicans, Jack. Until and unless voting in primaries is opened up to anyone who cares to vote, it will not be McCain. And at that point, maybe the Dems would end up with a Republican in front... 2 parties can play that stupid game, after all.
As to pulling ahead, you probably also believed 2006 and 2007 would be vicious, vicious hurricane years. Heck, didn't Al Gore say so? Even the NY Times reported it, and they NEVER get anything wrong.
There are plenty of Republicans who support McCain, and it's absurd to claim that those of us who like our candidate are really just confused Democrats.
McCain has a consistent pro-life, anti-deficit, pro-military conservative record. He doesn't always vote down the party line, and he is driven more by his own principles of what is best for the country than on what is best for the party in the short-run. He has broken with conservative orthodoxy on many issues. But it's wrong to say to say that he isn't a Republican because he criticized Rumsfeld (rightly) while never wavering in his support for the unpopular war, because he supported a guest worker program (as did President Bush, and a number of the current GOP field, though they've magically forgotten it), or because of McCain/Feingold (passed with bi-partisan support and signed by a Republican president).
I understand that a lot of people dislike John McCain. But I don't understand why anybody thinks that a strict adherence to party orthodoxy is always a good thing, or that the self-appointed GOP Thought Police can decide who is really a Republican.
There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet
'Thought Police' my hairy a$$... the whole point of a political party is to espouse a certain set of principles. What is this, a religion? THEY work for US, not the other way around, brother. I already said I place no religious value on the word 'Republican'. I am one because historically their principles have been mine. If I wanted to 'stick it to big business', 'make the rich man pay', make the world a beautiful place for gays and transsexuals, make it so that nobody can have more than someone who doesn't want to work, for all our wealth to be flowing into the pockets of anyone from anywhere who cares to come claim it, and free speech only for those who back the politically correct line, I'd be a Democrat, but I don't want those things.
At the point where the bulk of the GOP backs McCain, which after all would need to be true for him to get the nomination, it would be no party for me anymore. Don't get me wrong; McCain can be just as independent and 'devoted to his principles' as anyone. As I said, Democrats have 'principles' too. But when your principles break that much with what your party says, maybe you could find the honesty to, oh, I don't know, NOT CLAIM TO be one of them anymore?
In any case, as a purely practical matter, it is a simple fact that parties don't nominate their 'mavericks'. Lieberman won't be the Dem nominee any time soon, and McCain won't be the GOP's. They both have their principles, such as they are, and they're both fully entitled. They're even entitled to falsely claim to be members in good standing of their respective parties, if they want to, I suppose. But when half of 'your' party thinks you're an infiltrated agent from the other side, you're just plain pi$$ing in the wind chasing their nomination for president. If McCain had any brains at all, he would have long ago decided which he wanted more - to be the media darling scourge of the GOP from within, or a GOP president someday. If he thought he could ever be both, he is either a moron, or thinks we all are.
who you are or where you've been hiding, but this stuff you are writing about McCain is gold, Jerry, gold!
I wish you would write a McCain diary.
Assuming you mean me, why thank you. Truth is, I am on the new side here myself, and I don't know how one gets to write diaries and/or articles.
Concerning McCain, though, if I really thought he had a chance in hell, I wouldn't sleep nights. Without even getting ideological, I just plain can't understand how any of his supporters can think, as a purely practical matter now, someone whose party considers him a serious maverick will ever gain any party's nomination when people can still be found that most of the party actually agrees with. McCainites always say something like 'well, I don't agree with him on EVERYTHING, but he has my vote because I respect his convictions'. Teddy Kennedy has convictions too (although it could certainly be argued that he has at least one less than he ought to have...) -- should I ought to vote for him too, now?
I say those people should found the "I don't care what my guy believes, as long as he believes it good and hard" party, and see how that works out for them.
...but The Nation magazine is rather rabidly antiwar, and Senator McCain is not; and that's enough of a difference right there to invalidate your argument. If the antiwar movement could choose the Republican nominee on ideological grounds, they'd pick Ron Paul.
Who is, by the way, the only actual RiNO in this race.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Whoops, I meant to say TNR. Yes, I knew that about The Nation, and you would be correct on that. If you have any argument about TNR's McCain bona fides, on the other hand, see what Jonathan Chait said in their pages:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/43aba933-6972-4a36-a25f-a2973e69e4...
I'm going to be setting up a business selling carbon credits. He's joined the Church of AGW.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Obviously the drink of choice is Kool-Aid...
Your views on each issue match better with Fred, but after being on the straight talk express, you endorse McCain?
I am not going shy away from the fact that I am a Limbaugh fan, as are I think 12-20 million others... to me the thought of voting for John McCain is more damaging to the conservative base of the Party than sitting home and letting the dems have it. At least the (R) won't take the wrap everytime Johnny caves to, or better yet supports the likes of Kennedy or Fiengold.
As someone that has spent a lot of time looking at each one of the guys I have to ask if you are "celebrity struck"? I am not attempting to insult your endorsement of Jmac, I am just wondering how, one can get from matching Fred on the issues front, to endorsing McCain?
I see a lot of talk about Fred supporting McCain if he were to drop, but can't make the connection. I have posted before that it would be a great disappointment for me if Fred where to do that, so much so that I would lose respect for what he has had to say so far. I ask the questions not to attack your decision, but more so to figure out a way not to feel betrayed by Fred if he does.
The man just seems off base on so many issues. Torture, immigration, tax cuts... I have tremendous respect for his service to our country, but truthfully, I think his bad temper clouds his judgement and is reason enough to keep him from being a viable nominee.
They worked together in the Senate. Their voting records are very similar. McCain campaigned for Fred in TN. And Fred endorsed McCain over Bush in 2000.
Once you get past the angry screams of "AMNESTY," you might notice that their positions on most issues are close to identical. But that wouldn't make for good anti-McCain diaries, so no one writes them.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Fred Thompson voted for the 2001 Bush tax cuts. McCain was one of only 2 Republicans out of 50 to vote against them.
McCain supported the John Edwards-Ted Kennedy patients' bill of rights, which would have enriched trial lawyers. Fred Thompson did not.
Fred Thompson was not in the US Senate to support the right of Democrats to filibuster Bush's judicial nominees. But consider that McCain was among very few Republicans to announce publicly that he would vote with the Democrats if the Republicans tried to end the Democrats' judicial filibusters. Something to think about as Miguel Estrata is not on the US federal court of appeals due to judicial filibusters.
Thompson did not support the McCain-Kennedy immigration legislation, which, according to the Hertiage Foundation, would have resulted in increased spending on social welfare programs by 2 trillion dollars.
Thomspon does not support McCain on Global Warming regulation or CAFE standards.
Thompson does not support, as McCain does, in closing Gitmo and giving terrorists more legal rights.
So, there really are significant differences between McCain and Thompson.
But the most important may be the following:
When Thompson veers from conservative orthodoxy, he will not insult conservatives, he will not use the language of the left to attack conservatives, and he will not suck up to the drive by media in an attempt to triangulate against other conservatives.
McCain may have voted the same 83% of the time, but the other 17% of the time he is as vocal, obnoxious, and disrepectful of conversatives.
Thompson would never talk about policies favoring "the rich"
Thompson would never insinuate that conservatices were motivated by racism
Thompson would never look to differentiate himself from conservatices at the expense of conservatives
For a very different view of Mr. McCain than that put forth by Adam C anbd the other McCain apologists see my new blog John McCain- Just Say No. We set forth the many, many reasons why McCain is not really conservative and will inevitably side with media amd Democrat liberals when the chips are down. Don't let his support for the Iraq War blind you. It is an exception to the rule.
" And in a year where the Democrats have a 60-70% chance of winning the Presidency, Sen. McCain is likely the best chance for Republicans to avoid a Democratic sweep of the House, Senate and Presidency in 2008."
Well put. Folks, the last time I saw a election year in which the odds were so stacked against the Republicans was 1964. We need a candidate with the proven ability to get independent voters. Grow up and get behind a man that can win.