McCain to Win
He's Not Bob Dole and He's Not John Kerry.
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | John McCain | Mitt Romney — Comments (113) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It comes to this: John McCain and Mitt Romney. Rudy's out, and Huckabee is finished but will likely stay in the race as long as there is a race to stay in. More on them at another time, for we Republicans have a decision to make, and an important one: fall in behind the newly cemented frontrunner, John McCain, or stage a last-chance, rearguard action behind Mitt Romney. I'm sure I will not surprise anyone who has been reading my writings on this race these last few months when I say that I am supporting McCain, and hoping that the Party gets behind him quickly when and if, as seems likely, he sweeps a number of large states on Super-Duper Tuesday six days from now.
As I previously explained at some length, I am, like Martin, under no illusions about the nature of a McCain presidency, which would undoubtedly lead to a lot of bad consequences for conservatives on a whole range of issues and would almost certainly lead a divided and demoralized party to a bloody and potentially disastrous schism by 2012. I'm not going to sell you on McCain's specific policies other than to point out the obvious, which is that he would be far better on the war, the courts, taxes, spending and entitlements than Hillary or, should the improbable happen, Obama. (I may return another day to what I think McCain could accomplish in office, specifically the hope I had in supporting him 8 years ago that he may yet be the man who can actually do something about the entitlements crisis; I would also remind McCain's critics that the man cast tough votes to put Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court, and to oppose Bush's expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs). But as Ben has set out brilliantly, this election is so important at such a critical juncture that I am willing to make that deal to win it - and I believe with all my heart that McCain can win this race and Mitt Romney cannot.
I will address below three main points:
1. Why I think McCain can win, and specifically why I think analogies to John Kerry and Bob Dole are misguided.
2. Why I think Romney can't win and would be a bad candidate to lose with.
3. Why we need the primaries wrapped up quickly now that we are down to a more traditional two-man race.
Read On...
I. McCain Can Win.
As Adam has noted, McCain has now vaulted ahead of Hillary and Obama in head-to-head polls. I don't pay a ton of attention to such polls this early before a nominee has been settled on, and that undoubtedly reflects the wave of good press for McCain as he gathers momentum, as well as the wave of bad press emanating from the nasty, racially divisive Hillary-Obama race. Still, it's a reminder that McCain can reach people in the general electorate at a time when the GOP is at something of a low ebb, and that's worth keeping in mind when discussing how.
A. The Silver Lining In McCain's Moderation
I have emphasized for a reason that ideas don't run for president, people do. Sure, some voters vote on issues, and candidates' handling of the issues also tells us things about their personality and philosophy and values that form a more general impression for the voters. (E.g., "I voted for it before I voted against it."). But the majority of voters are to be reached fundamentally by a sense of whether or not they like and trust the candidate and the general impression they have of what the candidate stands for.
McCain's defining feature is still his sense of personal honor, duty and patriotic service, and those are not characteristics to sneeze at; they will play well on the trail. He is still the man who could say with seriousness and dignity, as he did when casting an unpopular vote to remove Hillary's husband from office:
All of my life, I have been instructed never to swear an oath to my country in vain. In my former profession, those who violated their sworn oath were punished severely and considered outcasts from our society. I do not hold the President to the same standard that I hold military officers to. I hold him to a higher standard. Although I may admit to failures in my private life, I have at all times, and to the best of my ability, kept faith with every oath I have ever sworn to this country. I have known some men who kept that faith at the cost of their lives.
I cannot--not in deference to public opinion, or for political considerations, or for the sake of comity and friendship--I cannot agree to expect less from the President.
Step back from the many detailed disputes we conservatives have with McCain, and you can see why a lot of Republicans are fine voting for McCain, but also why a lot of independents and moderate Democrats are too. From a distance, the public image of McCain is indeed a guy who is conservative on core issues: a foreign policy hawk who made supporting the Iraq War his signature issue, a fighter against wasteful government spending, a man who opposes tax hikes and abortion, supported conservative judges and even fought against President Bush on expanding Medicare. Yet, it's also an image that sands down what a lot of moderates see as the rough edges of conservatism on the environment, "torture," immigration, and a variety of Beltway-scandal type issues. Fairly or not, that picture is an appealing one to the general public, especially when combined with McCain's own war-hero status. Spend some time talking to non-political people and non-Republicans about McCain and Romney and I guarantee you they will have a much greater openness to McCain than to Romney. That matters a lot.
Recalling that President Bush's approval ratings remain terrible (though not as bad as those of the wimpy, defeatist Congressional Democrats, from whom McCain is also easily distinguishable), consider Jay Cost's analysis of the Florida exit polls:
McCain once again won those who are disenchanted by the Bush presidency. Most Florida Republicans (68%) approve of the Bush administration. Romney won them, 35% to 31%. McCain, however, scored an overwhelming, 22-point victory among the 32% of voters who disapprove. I think this is one of the evolving stories of the Republican contest. If you like Bush, you are inclined to Romney (or one of the other candidates, all of whom but Ron Paul do better among Bush supporters than Bush opponents). If you dislike Bush, you are inclined to McCain.
-From a certain perspective, this is an ironic feature of this campaign. McCain has been campaigning, in part, on the surge - the hallmark of the Bush presidency for the last year. Romney has been campaigning on fixing Washington. But the results do not follow these pitches. Why? I think one reason has to do with the long memories of voters. McCain's reputation as an anti-Bush maverick is still quite ingrained in their minds. So, those who disapprove of Bush are "naturally" inclined to McCain, despite Romney's anti-Washington pitch. Meanwhile, voters supportive of Bush recall how many times McCain has been a thorn in the president's side, and so are inclined to Romney.
-There is a lesson in all of this about the limitations of political campaigns. They only do so much to shape the thinking of the American voter. Those who have held opinions about political figures for a long time are not going to be easily disabused of them, despite how many political ads are run or adjustments in messaging are made. I think this hints at a mistake the Romney campaign made - it pivoted too late to a message about fixing Washington.
Add in McCain's personality (more on this later), and you can see why he presents a particularly formidable general-election candidate, especially when matched against Hillary, who I regard now once again as almost certain to win her party's nomination by whatever means necessary.
B. He's Not Kerry or Dole
Critics of the "electability" argument often point to the Democrats' 2004 nomination of John Kerry, a nomination of a Senator and putative war hero made with both eyes on electability, as a cautionary tale. Critics of McCain often point to Bob Dole, another Senator and war hero, as a parallel for why McCain would be a weak candidate. There are indeed some similarities - all three Senators were "settled on" without being really the top choice of almost anyone in their party, and McCain like Kerry went from frontrunner to dead and buried in the summer and fall to suddenly revived at the last minute - but like Kerry's beloved Vietnam-Iraq parallels, the differences are just as important.
1. McCain's actually a good candidate.
Kerry was in a bunch of obvious ways (see here and here) a crummy candidate, and had Democrats listened to us Republicans who had watched the man at any length, they would have realized that. The fact that Democrats thought he was electable just proved how blinkered they were, for example overlooking a huge vulnerability (the longstanding animosity of Vietnam vets towards Kerry's behavior after returning from Vietnam in the early 70s) and mistaking Kerry's war record for actual credibility on national security. (An added bonus is that Kerry's war record failed to impress many of his fellow veterans, which is plainly not true of McCain. A number of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" knew McCain from being POWs and support him now).
Dole, burned by the coverage of his acid tongue in 1976 and his temper in 1988, was overly cautious on the trail, and struck people as too old compared to the vigorous, glamorous Bill Clinton. By contrast, McCain, despite his age, is fast on his feet and charming in his own brusque, short-fused way, and is unafraid to basically be himself. In Hillary, moreover, he is likely to face an adversary who is herself not the picture of youth and is about as un-charismatic as you could be.
McCain's age worried me a lot more a year ago before watching him on the trail. Obama, who could easily be McCain's son age-wise, has seemed exhausted and grouchy more often than McCain.
2. McCain's not running against an incumbent.
This ought to be an obvious point, but it gets missed a lot. Kerry, for all his problems, did not do so badly at the end of the day for a candidate running against an incumbent in wartime with a strong economy and a united party at his back. Despite the palpable lack of enthusiasm for Kerry in his own party, you could not argue (as with Al Gore) that the man lost because he failed to get his own supporters to show up and vote. He lost because the incumbent had a great turnout of his own and won over many people who didn't vote for him four years earlier. The same is true to a lesser extent of the Clinton-Dole race - Clinton was a popular incumbent, there was never any doubt that Democrats would be united behind him (he was able to start pounding Dole with TV ads in mid-1995, whereas Hillary is still tied up with Obama). The fact that Kerry and Dole lost to incumbents says little enough about McCain.
3. McCain is just fine with moderates.
This is related to the points I made above: Kerry was the very caricature of a Massachusetts liberal, so it should not have surprised anyone that the general electorate would view him as less electable than the Democratic primary electorate. McCain's problem is with conservative Republicans, not 'swing' voters. And conservatives by and large will come out to vote against Hillary for the same reasons the lefties came out against Bush in 2004. The contrast between McCain's "bipartisan maverick" cred and Hillary's deep, bitter divisiveness is a perfect recipe for a McCain victory.
4. There's a war on.
Dole's war-hero status, long experience in Washington and general foreign policy credibility didn't count for much in 1996 because national security wasn't a major issue in that campaign. In 2008, it's unavoidable.
II. What's The Point of Losing With Romney?
I have explained at enormous length previously (see here and go back to the prior 4 installments, as well as here, here and here for more recent, specific issues) why I think Romney - unlike McCain - is a weak and ultimately unelectable general election candidate, as well as less reliable as a Commander-in-Chief than McCain (gamecock, no McCain fan, summarizes the latter point here). And let's not forget priceless moments on the trail like this one, as well as Ben's analysis. Let's just review a couple of items here to sum up.
A. No Hablo Espanol
First, check the exit polls: McCain beat Romney 51-15 among Latino voters, with Mitt trailing Rudy by 10 points in that demographic as well. Even recognizing that Florida's Latinos are dominated by Cuban-Americans who may have their own reasons for preferring McCain, this is a very important demographic group and a growing one in critical states. GOP support among Latinos grew under Bush and has plummeted in the past two years, undoubtedly due at least in part to the number of Latinos who view hardline rhetoric on immigration with distaste or even fear.
Like it or not, the GOP cannot be competitive in the short or the long term if Latino voters become as solidly Democratic as African-Americans are. McCain's record on immigration is too far to the left for my taste, but it's bound to burn fewer bridges than Romney's approach. It's not just that Romney's an immigration hardliner, but that he really plays into every negative stereotype of the immigration hardline politician: an opportunist and panderer who only jumped on this issue when he ran for president, a man born to wealth who wants to crack down on the very people who mow his lawn. True, Romney would appeal to the tiny though growing slice of the population that is both Latino and Mormon. And true, much of that is unfair, but political realities are no less real for being unfair.
I know some immigration hawks will be upset at all this, and are the one group within the party that really might bolt over a McCain nomination. Look, I think he's been bad on illegal immigration too, and I think McCain's promise to do more on the border is likely to hold only for about two years, but at the end of the day there's just no evidence that there are or ever have been enough single-issue immigration hawk voters to be a factor in a national election. Whereas there is substantial evidence that there's a whole lot of Latinos, and an increasing number, and evidence as well that as a group they are likely to react poorly to a candidate who seems to be demagogic on this issue.
B. No Hablo Ingles, Either
Second, I've covered this issue at length before, but consider this frank discussion by Ana Marie Cox of the mood of the press covering Romney in Michigan, as evidenced by his clash with a whiny, gotcha-minded reporter over the roles of lobbyists in the Romney campaign:
One of the hallmarks of the Romney campaign is the way reporters, barred from access to the actual candidate, spend the journey from event to event talking about the candidate's latest distortions/exaggerations/evasions. So no wonder Johnson boiled over.
It had been a long time coming. In Michigan, the frustration over Romney's complete disingeniousness about "bringing your jobs back" conjured a rare degree of camaraderie, and we caucused together and came up with a list of questions that we agreed to ask no matter who got called on at the next press conference. For instance: "If Bain Capital was going to invest in the auto industry, what segment would it invest in, and how would that help Michigan?" Salon's Mike Madden actually got that in, but it elicited a non-answer: "I've been out of the private sector too long to advise people on that kind of thing." In other words, his experience in the private sector is relevant, until he's called upon to use it.
The specific issue is the danger created by Romney's lack of candor. Now, I'd like to be precise here. Candor isn't the same thing as honesty; basically all politicians can get caught at times bending the truth until it begs for mercy, whether deliberately or not. And it isn't the same thing as sincerity; all politicians at times pander to voters, donors, the media, etc. Neither McCain nor any of the other major Republican candidates in this race are immune to these.
But Romney has stuck out in this field because McCain, Huck, Rudy and Fred are all remarkably candid candidates, prone to one extent or another to going off-message, shooting the breeze with reporters, telling spontaneous and sometimes ill-advised jokes and uncomfortable truths, chewing out hecklers. McCain is a master of all these, and is beloved by the reporters who cover him for this at least as much as for his willingness to rip his own party. You can see this in the coverage even by lefty pundits like Cox who think McCain is a lunatic warmonger.
A highly disciplined, never-off-message corporate-communications style campaign, as run previously by MBA George W. Bush and as being conducted by former corporate lawyer Hillary Clinton, has its benefits: fewer opportunities for gaffes, fewer leaks. But the downside is this: reporters need something to write about. Most reporters are perfectly happy filling otherwise-vacant column-inches (and their TV/radio/cyberspace equivalents) from time to time by regurgitating press releases and talking points; it's easy work. But it's not what they got into reporting to do on a daily basis, and they crave authenticity and unscripted moments that give them a chance to flex their poetic-insight chops. A candidate who never gives the reporters anything but the canned message of the day to talk about creates a news vacuum, and as the Bush years vividly illustrate, that vacuum will often be filled by people who hate the candidate with an incandescant passion.
C. Going Down With A Picture of A Ship
Third, Romney's efforts to appeal to core conservative values should not be confused with credible advocacy of conservative principles. The recency of Romney's convsersion to the conservative cause doesn't just make him an untrustworthy leader but also a less than credible spokesman, since it's hard to convince people of ideas you yourself didn't believe in not so very long ago and seem to have embraced for purely opportunistic reasons. Some say that Romney appeals more to the "three legs" of the GOP "stool". But if national security, economic and social conservatism are the three legs, principled leadership is the seat. And if, like Romney, you try to sit on a stool with three hasily assembled legs and no seat, all you get is three poles up your butt. While Romney has had more success of late running as himself, a Mr. Fixit from the business world, his technocratic appeals to managerial omniscience divorced from principle rightly went out of style after Herbert Hoover.
As I have argued in the context of judicial nominations, sometimes the fights you are best positioned to win are the ones that are worth losing. But other than the fact that he can self-finance and avoid wasting other people's money, and perhaps the cementing of the Mormon vote (which is already a GOP stronghold), I don't see what could possibly be accomplished for conservatives long-term by losing with Romney. His transparent lack of principle makes his campaign the polar opposite of the conservative-activist-spawning runs of Goldwater in '64 and Reagan in '76. As noted above, he could turn off Latino voters, and if there really are a lot of anti-Mormon evangelicals, they could stay home and cost us races down-ticket. His record as a party-builder is non-existent. Unlike a McCain loss, a Romney loss would not be easily blamed by conservatives on an excess of moderation. Not only is he likely to lose with a lot less dignity than McCain might, he's highly unlikely to accomplish anything along the way.
III. Time To Pick A Nominee
Romney now trails in the delegate count 93-59, and faces a four-pronged problem on Super Tuesday: (1) McCain just got a big momentum boost, (2) McCain was already leading in a number of the states on the 2/5 schedule, (3) McCain seems likely to gain a lot of moderate Republicans who would have supported Rudy in big states like NY, NJ, IL and CA, and (4) with only a few days to go, Romney has only limited ability to turn that around by spending more of his own money, which he now seems gunshy about doing.
That could leave him trailing heavily after Tuesday even if he does win a handful of states. And if he does so, it's time for Mitt's remaining supporters to close ranks behind McCain.
Historically, the party that unites first behind a nominee wins. It's especially important for Republicans to do that this year, given the massive war chests held by the two Democrat contenders and the bruises left within the party by what has already been a long and contentious process. But just when the rest of us are heaving a sigh of relief that McCain, whatever his flaws, might yet lock this up before the bitter race war is over on the Democratic side, however, Hugh Hewitt wants to don the Mao cap and start the Long March:
Huck's voters are conservative or very conservative, and if they stay with Huck because they like him better than Romney, they hand the nomination to McCain.
If an ABM Treaty emerges --anybody but McCain-- the smoke will clear a week from now on a delegate hunt that will continue through the Pennsylvania primary in late April, seven contests in May, and the June 3rd elections in New Mexico and South Dakota. McCain could conceivably seal the deal next week by running the table, but if Romney can rally enough of the conservatives, he can force the race into the final innings.
This way lies madness, to say nothing of madness for the sake of ... Mitt Romney? Compare Romney to Reagan '76 all you like (and remember that the cost of losing in '76 was the Carter Administration), but to paraphrase Bill James, Romney is no more the embodiment of the Reagan coalition than a bearskin rug stuffed with hamburger is a bear. If McCain wins the handful of big states and his home state on 2/5, it should be over, for the good of the party, and for all of our sanity, so we can go back to beating the Democrats like a drum.
Conclusion
As I have said before, I think McCain's age, combined with his breaks with conservatives, make him an unlikely candidate to serve two terms, and a likely one to face a primary challenge in 2012. That may end up being for the best. But for now, he's the best of the two remaining choices in terms of giving us a chance to accomplish the most important things we as conservatives hope to do in the next four years. Let's get behind John McCain all the way to the White House.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | A Different Way To Analyze the FL Outcome — Comments (14) »
McCain to Win 113 Comments (0 topical, 113 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Richie, I understand the frustration, but when you say that he might "work with Democrats to pass terrible laws," I think that McCain would be exactly the person we want fighting the GOP cause on the biggest issue of our generation - spending.
McCain has taken on the earmarkers (although not as strongly as Tom Coburn), and had the courage to vote against massive expansions of Medicare. Unfortunately, with the Democrats holding on to at least the Senate for the foreseeable future, reforming these programs is going to take someone that can, on occasion, reach across the aisle. McCain clearly has conservative instincts, especially when it comes to how the government spends my money. When it comes to reforming social security and Medicare, I'd definitely like him fighting on my side.
---
According to Democrats, it’s greedy to want to keep your own money, but it’s “justice” to demand someone else’s.
--Jonah Goldberg
Like you, I think that McCain is, without a doubt, a stronger general election candidate than is Romney.
McCain does have some vunerabilities worth noting, however. The biggest seems to be his temper, which occassionally erupts, and causes him trouble. He needs to rein that in for the general election.
As you say, the Kerry and Dole comparisons just don't fit. Dole - whom I intensely respect - was a party leader who couldn't speak in complete sentences. Seeing him in the debate was embarrassing. And Kerry was known for exactly nothing over the twenty years of service. McCain, like it or not, has been at the heart of great debates for many years, but is not burdened with the entire GOP agenda, and is far more media friendly than Dole.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
McCain can't win, I'll explain why.
You need about 52% of the vote in the general election to assure victory. And you need to take Florida, Ohio or some other combination. I don't see McCain expanding the redstate base, do you? He kinda blew it in Michigan. There will be no "surge" of conservative support in blue states to change things.
Fact, the swing voters in the middle control the election.
Fact, John appeals to swing voters, but, and this is it, not as much as Hillary (women) and Barack ( blacks, young people etc.)
Here's the question that middle swing voters will ask? What's the difference between McCain and Billary/BHO. If they determine "not much" then the Dems have it.
So, Let's give Mitt a chance for at least two reasons.
1. If he loses, the dems will go down in the mid terms, they have to, because they really are bad government. So we will have a congress eager to fight.
2. If Mitt wins, it is likely to be a two termer. He is young and people seem to like him the more they know him. (the opposite is true for McCain, he is shrill, untruthful, vain,
has a terrible record. McCain Flip Flopped about 20x more than Mitt.) Mitt is also unlikely to damage the GOP the way McCain could with issues like Gorebull warming and McCain /Slimgold.
Does anyone actually believe that the amnesty thing wouldn't be first on his list? McCain doesn't like to be taught lessons by the people.
If we have conservative principles, and a candidate that is differentiated strongly, we could win.
With McCain we would have for the first time, only Dems contesting the election.
Hillary will get some additional swing women, true. She'll lose that much in swing men, however, and then some.
Obama we simply don't know. I admit it would be harder to beat him.
Problem is that Mitt would get beaten like a redheaded stepchild by Obama and would, at best, be very close against Hillary.
In spite of all the sniping on the part of bloggers and such, 99% of the "base" will vote for McCain. I'm sorry if you don't know this.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
With that, I stopped thinking you actually wanted a real answer.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
It's a treat to read one of these outstanding pieces in a day, but two is a bonus. Excellent work!
Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt was trying to spin Romney's changes in positions as a virtue. To paraphrase, "Because of how he's changed his positions in the past, he has to stick to his current positions as president!" Just like with the Harriet Miers mess, Hewitt does go overboard every now and then.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
I have stopped going to Hugh's website because of his incessant Romney fawning. It is ok to like a candidate, but not ok to be incapable of being objective about your candidate.
I think Hugh does his own candidate a disservice. Romney needed someone to - early on - tell him to run on his business record, and to stop trying to spin people that he is the three legged stool conservative. It is just not believable.
BTW, Romney may not shift on social issues, but he has shifted on economics to the left - see MI and FL (the drug benefit). This leaves me cold, since I am more of an economic conservative and a national security conservative than I am a social conservative.
former self. He did outstanding work on promoting victory in Iraq, for instance, and I am sure he will do much more.
An analysis that is, in my opinion, dead on.
Well done Dan.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Great post with excellent polls. Polls have suggested the same thought for months while I originally supported Fred Thompson I can live with McCain
The hordes of supposed disgruntled conservatives are mostly fictious and are easily offset by the hordes of disgruntled Obama or Clinton supporters.
I might add that Romney would almost certainly been the 1st Presidential candidate in years to have nearly no chance of carrying his home state or at least his adopted home state.
That would be the commonwealth of Mass.
I might add that Romney would almost certainly been the 1st Presidential candidate in years to have nearly no chance of carrying his home state or at least his adopted home state.
Granted it has been years since Gore lost his home state of TN, but only two elections ago.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
The comment said Romney would be the first to have no chance to win his home state. That would be true. While Gore lost TN in 2000, I don't think that it was a foregone conclusion from day 1. We could all tell you right now that, even if the Democrats nominated Ronald McDonald, Romney wouldn't win Massachusetts in the general.
TN in 200 went 51-47. Comfortable, but no a slam dunk. MA, even with Romney on the ticket would still be 60+ Democrat and I would bet Romney wouldn't even bother to spend a dime there.
I guess I am a "supposed disgruntled" conservative since I would never vote for McCon. And it is interesting that you find polls so influencing, are you willing for McCon to govern by them just like the democrats do. He will. Voting for McCon is the same as voting for Hillary or Obama, you'll get bye bye tax cuts, environmental laws, amnesty for illegals and a host of other liberal drivel. Sorry Dan, no matter how elegantly you try to post it, your ignorance or unwillingness to look at his record is blaring in this real conservatives face.
A couple of points:
-As noted in an addendum to my blog today, McCain has not received a very large amount of self proclaimed Republicans in previous primaries. Plus 36 percent in Florida, a closed primary state, is not that great. He may have the delegates and momentum, but without additional support he has a very good chance to be either Gerald Ford or Bob Dole.
- I have not given up on Romney yet as our potential candidate. Nonetheless, it's a big hill to climb.
In the end, we should do what is right for now and rebuild our movement in the interim.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
let the candidates and voters decide. This won't be close to locked up on 2/5, and none of these candidates particularly inspire a groundswell of support. Financial resources or securing enough delegates are the only reasons for anyone to exit a race that doesn't involve overwhelmingly popular candidates. If someone sees any way for someone to lock up the nomiation before the Texas and Ohio primaries March 4, let me read it. Otherwise, I have gotten weary already of the "X must leave if Y happens..." Give us a break.
Overall, this is one of the very best pieces I have read on McCain and Romney and the primaries. Well-reasoned and well-edited, with a whole buncha insights.
(And I laughed out loud at the ending to your three-legged stool analogy.)
Objectively, I think this article is not fair to some of Romney's strengths, but you are correct about his weaknesses and the dangers they present.
and only if lots of the right doesn't peel off for third parties (as I will) or just stay home and find something else to do (as a lot more will) if he's the nominee.
Pro-amnesty with weak pro-gun credentials. What am I supposed to do? Of course I'm not voting for McCain. Conservatives have to maintain some kind of credible deterrence or they'll be sold out even more than they are now. The credible deterrence is the threat to walk, and, to a lesser extent, to withhold funds. That's all we've got.
I would have thought that all the "tough-minded" fight-the-terrorists types here would maintain a smidgen of that tough-mindedness for domestic politics. This ain't high school. It's a long term struggle and there are -- in the short to medium term -- more vital things than being part of the "winner's" clique.
Jump on board with McCain and the conservative threat to walk will be nullified for at least the next decade, with predictable effects on the national GOP and general rampant RINOness.
If you actually like McCain and where he stands, that's fine. But supporting McCain even though you know he sucks is self-castration. It's weird to see people lining up to do so.
thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com
Just what the Republican party needs - two very liberal Republicans leading our party... I just can't wait...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Yes, McCain would be good on spending. And probably Iraq (I won't even say security because of his crazy positions on Gitmo, waterboarding, and terrorist rights). But I disagree with his 20 year record of poking his finger in the eyes of conservatives on just about everything else (ask Santorum or Allen, my two favorite senators last year). I guess he doesn't like me because I benefited from Bush's tax cuts (hence, I'm "rich"). Even on judicial philosophy, could he support a judge who doesn't think McCain-Feingold is constitutional (because strict constructionists do not). So, McCain will probably win some Dems/Independents, and for that, he's fortunate. Because most conservatives will probably stay home...
Richie Rich
Thanks for taking the time to do this.
Visit The Scratching Post!
Good stuff, as always.
"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
against him if he is the nominee. His dirty ticks are Clintonesque. What a dirty, lying, petty, angry, man.
Look. It's a primary. It's a touchy time.
Take five deep breaths and watch a Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama debate before you say anything like that.
"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
Does anyone know if McCain helps us hold on to New Mexico/Colorado? The former might be problematic if Richardson is the VP, and even if he isn't. The latter is burdened with the unthankable task of hosting the Democratic Party Convention, which might drive up the GOTV in Boulder/Denver. Just looking at the map, does McCain write off the upper midwest the same way he does in the primary due to his opposition to ethanol subsidies? How does he poll in Ohio/Michigan/Pennslyvania? Does he retake New Hampishire, or is it too blue? I can assure everyone that Virginia will stay Republican. The military vote in my home state that catapulted Webb to office will line up behind Senator McCain.
And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they may be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round. ~ Winston Churchill
and the Senator of a neighboring state in NM. He is the best suited of any of the candidate to do it.
McCain '08
The Dems are pushing us there (Denver/Boulder) but the Repubs. tend to be of the old "very conservative" type.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I strongly believe McCain would do very well in region. I am not sure he could keep NM if Richardson is on ticket but I strongly believe he will keep Colorado and Nevada for us. No money would have to be spent in Arizona.
I believe MsCain would do very well in NH, DE, WI, IA, MN, PA, and maybe even MI.
The only red states that concern me are in order of highest threat: Ohio, Missouri, Florida (although I suspect state is further red now), West Virginia (Bush first Republican to really carry it is this a fluke?), Arkansas (Clinton factor and if Obama is nominee high black factor) and New Mexico (we did win it last year but we can still lose it and win WH)
The playfield will be unpredictable. He could win virtually every non-DARK blue state, by that, I mean he's even got big enough followings in places like California to make it not impossible in a good year against a bad candidate if he ran a good campaign.
But in reality, he'd probably just win close states. He'd win Colorado, New Mexico, could win New Hampshire. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania (actually, I could see him winning in these places but still losing in Ohio, but I think he'd win that too).
It also depends on who he's up against. I think he'll crush Hillary like a bug. Obama is very difficult to gage. Will it be the "Change" "Hope" candidate vs. the "Old" "Time has Past" candidate? Or will it be the "Brash, stupid punk" candidate vs. "Battle-hardened wise man" candidate. Answer that question and you figured out who wins the election.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
the media. When they turn on McCain, and they will turn (including Chris "soft brain" Matthews), what wil that do to mushy middle and how they perceive him.
McCain has not been subjected to negative press in the way that will if he wins the nomination.
He will lose a lot of his fair weather fans, especially if he debates like he did tonight.
Mitt's position, reiterated tonight, that he will make sure that basically all the illegals get kicked out, albeit in a compassionate manner with timetables, will just be poison to Latino voters.
Don't take me wrong but this is good stuff.
This gives me the feeling of a car salesman trying to close the deal. "What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY."
Much has been said about Mitt and car salesmen but Dan you do a good job too. (Just sign on the dotted line)
I don't see the need to rush this thing. I think it might do people good to see how John wears for a month or two.
Why not. I think this compressed primary has hurt the process.
Polls and knee jerk reaction gives the msm to much influence.
Nobody should be afraid of a good long look. Except for freaks like us America has only been watching for 30 days.
I don't think that the moved up primary schedule has had much of an effect on the nomination process w/r/t media influence. With any given election most people don't pay attention to it until the last month anyways.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
We are going to live with our next POTUS for the next 4/8 years and the real test for them starts after the first primary.
Since we don't vote until Nov. I don,t mind keeping the bright light on them for a time. Better to see if they have a mask that might slip.
First, I'll work as hard as I can to see Romney win the GOP nomination.
But if not, then ... I personally will work a "border state flip" strategy:
1. Several states (e.g., my own WV) are fundamentally BLUE, but have voted RED for President in recent elections.
2. A few ultra conservatives (a triple play for me -- social, financial, and governmental conservative) as myself will explicitly vote DEMOCRAT this round to guarantee that our state "flips." I have like minded friends in OH, FL, etc.
I much prefer to get the pain over with (another Carter-like presidency) than for the GOP to provide the next "Democrat" president, and take the blame.
This means voting for my first Democrat -- ever !! You could say "I have no choice" since both at heart are Democrats. How many times has he "almost crossed over"? e.g., as John Kerry's running mate !!
Maybe he'll get Joe Lieberman to be his running mate.
No, Joe has already declined -- So, it must be the other John?
Or maybe which ever Democrat (Obama or Hillary) fails to win their own party's nomination.
Once he has the nomination -- he'll stick his finger in every conservative's eye.
Does he now want to "make pretty" with conservatives -- start by repealing McCain-Feingold. Then I might at least listen.
Otherwise -- he's doomed !!
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
expect nothing in return.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
There are many - MANY-conservative Christians - NOT Huck types... who will NEVER pull a lever for Juan McCain.
McCain-Fiengld, McCain-Kenndy, McCain-Liebermn.... enough said.
Idiot on the economy! Hothead with the nuclear football ?
Open borders.... he does not have a clue on the dangers to the culture or the Republic from this continued invasion.
He lies damn near as well as the Clintons !
If the Demorats are in charge and raise taxes and wreck the economy then they will get kicked out in '12.
Put Juan in the Whitehouse and the outcome will be the same and the electorate will be mad as hell with no where to turn in '12.
Juan Mc Cain is NOT a conservative !
This comes back to a point I made with many of my moderate/liberal friends who were calling us out on being stupid and not voting for McCain come 2000. "Oh I like him, I'd vote for him". No, the same reason he's getting pull by the press (but moderates/independents) in particular is that he's "sticking it in the eye" of us. And guess what - if the goal of many of this is to "stick it in our eye" - who is going to do it deeper?
The Democrats.
So faced with a choice of McCain and Hillary - they will flock to her. His "electability" will go up in smoke like the so many mirrors that make it seem like he has a chance.
Plus did you watch the debate tonight? Loved all that talk about policies that will utterly cripple our economy. People say we can trust him on Judges (yeah right! - think he'll put on the critical vote to end his dirty attack on the 1st Amendment?) at least we know our economy will be in the tank when he does it. That makes me want to vote for him.
Heck I'm in a swing state now (formerly of New York (aka the "if you're a republican you are better off burning your ballot for heat")) and I probably won't vote for the man. Watch his answer on Immigration - he will sign his bill the absolute second it crosses his desk. And all for earmark reform - but Romney nailed it - it's about the entitlement programs and McCain has not proven to me he has any real sense on these issues.
I resent your veiled and very un-Christian xenophobia. And, btw, what the heck does our immigration policy and your desire to deport Christians have to do with you claim to Christian conservatism?
He only commented on our lack of support for the law. Where does that come into your statement? Deporting illegals has no religious connotation.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
There should be a store where you can buy your credibility back. Or maybe not.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
the current daily infusion of illegals... You may want to evade the word, but it is accurate... Sorry Charles, but you do have to eventually face the facts of accounting...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Invasion: "The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer."
I'm not evading the word, you and WSG are distorting it, and that's a fact.
They're illegal immigrants, and they've come here with the intent to improve their lives financially. There is no grand scheme among these people to conquer the United States and convert it to Mexican territory.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
to export their people here to that they will later import money to Mexico.
Government employees actively tell folks how to do it.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I just love it when you liberals use the dictionary to defend yourselves.
This may be one of the single funniest things I've ever read at this site. Not the best--but it's up there. Allow me to offer you a few points for your consideration, so that you may avoid being unintentionally hilarious in the future.
- Sneering at someone because they insist that you use a word correctly, and disparaging the use of a dictionary, merely makes you look uneducated and anti-intellectual, while saying nothing at all about them.
- Charles is not a liberal. Really. No, don't bother to defend what you said, don't try to manufacture justifications--just take my word for it. As hard as it may be for you to accept this, merely disagreeing with your position on an issue does not make someone a liberal.
What do you think it says about you as a person that you think the use of Latino names is insulting, hmm?
Don't do it again at RedState.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
"There's no question that the President and the Prime Minister O have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those should not be a public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds before you're gone."
Tell me how that qualifies as calling for a timetable for withdrawal?! Shame on you Senator McCain...You are a despicable and shameless LIAR, (This coming from a die hard Huckabee voter who regularly refers to Romney as Mr. Fantastic for his rubber like ability to twist himself into both sides of every issue)!
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
and Huckabee is a pro at it.How about the tax issue,the theology degree,ordained,tuition for illegals,the smoking ban,amnesty,ect.ect.ect.
AND- Mr Fantastic for his rubber like ability to twist himself into both sides of every issue.Is this Mitt or Huck your talking about because it describes both of them.
The remaining field of candidates is not going to produce a president in Nov. and deep down in our GOP hearts we know it.Hillary will have them for lunch.
Still a Fredhead
I was willing to leave Huck for Fred had he made more than a half hearted attempt to win...as it is, (Whether intentional or by accident), he turned out to be nothing more than a hatchet man for McCain.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
of the "Thompson was McCain's hatchet man" meme. Thought the sarcasm would show up w/out use of the snark. Guess I'm losing my touch. :-)
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
"just trying to point out the vacuousness of the "Thompson was McCain's hatchet man" meme."
I said "whether intentional or not". He succeeded in kneecapping Huckabee and Romney and left McCain to reap the benefit. Whether that was by design or not is irrelevant it's the effect of his last minute show of life before bowing out!
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
BTW My comment had nothing to do with Huck
Attacking the candidate of a person that is pointing out your guy's lies just shows that you've lost the arguement!
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
And I AM NOT a Ron Paul supporter by any means.
Heck I'm just figuring on doing it for some no nothing candidate simply because I'm sure they know their voting block better than most. If they get one extra vote - they might at least throw a party and get some fun out of it.
This is all silly for one reason - http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006458
Hope you all enjoy being censored 30 days before a general election. Not like that time period is important to this site or anything.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/09/05/fec-determines-that-blogs-count-as-...
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Excellent post. Very well thought out, reasonable, and well argued.
I agree with almost every point you made. I look forward to McCain stomping Hillary in November.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Very good article. I'm a disappointed Fredhead who has been in the ABM camp, and trying to wrestle with the bleak options on the table.
Your comment "remember that the cost of losing in '76 was the Carter Administration" highlights the one good reason NOT to support McCain, should he be the nominee. While the loss in '76 surely gave us the Carter Administration, I believe it also gave us 8 years of Ronald Reagan. I am not at all convinced that a Gerald Ford win in '76 would have set the table so well for Reagan's win in '80. Indeed, a Ford win in '76 might well have precluded the world-changing Reagan presidency.
My concern about a McCain presidency is that our already weak and feeble Republican delegation in Congress will be forced to try to support our Republican president and the results will be disastrous for the conservative movement for a decade or longer. At least if our delegation is the opposition party, we can have an impact on Democrat proposals And the results are not an albatross about our necks in the coming election cycles.
Only the issue of judicial appointments give me reason to support McCain, and even that issue doesn't inspire much confidence. I fear that McCain's constant need for media-love coupled with his manic desire to proove his 'maverick' credentials will cause him to appoint 'consensus' candidates. If a Democrat is president, and if (a big if) we can hold at least 41 or 42 votes in the Senate (Spector is obviously useless) we can have a role in judicial appointments and moderate against the worst of them.
Maybe, just maybe, four years will give us enough pain and enough time to mount a 1994 style movement. And maybe, just maybe, we won't screw it up this time.
F.O.V.
Posting from Fly-Over Country
You say: Your comment "remember that the cost of losing in '76 was the Carter Administration" highlights the one good reason NOT to support McCain, should he be the nominee. While the loss in '76 surely gave us the Carter Administration, I believe it also gave us 8 years of Ronald Reagan.
I've been fighting this feel-good, but painfully misguided logic for a long time.
Then, when trying again to explain why this is a bad thought, another RS're did it better then I ever could. I repost his post here:
by reldim
It took 30 years to get Afghanistan to a point of even being winable, and we're still paying for Carter's sins with Iran.
Maybe folks are right that a Hillary presidency would propel another Reagan-like conservative to the White House. The problem is that we wouldn't be working from our present position. We'd spend perhaps the whole first term of said future president just trying to (unsuccessfully) reverse the damage done by the Democrats. In some cases it will not be possible to undo it - think of the new liberals that would be on SCOTUS who would likely outlast even Hillary's successor - think of the vast increase in government interference and regulation of the health care industry or the drug and oil companies. Some of those things, like the Great Society programs of the 60s will never be eliminated - we'll be stuck hoping to tighten the rules and limit their reach ala welfare reform.
We didn't "win by losing" in 1976. We lost by losing. One could probably argue that even with a Ford victory over Carter in 1976, Reagan would have been a leading candidate in 1980 - he had nearly unseated a sitting President in a primary. Carter didn't propel Reagan to the nomination - even the Rockefellerites hated Carter. Carter was a boon in the general, but the primaries were won because conservatives wanted it, and were able to sell it to voters.
We can do it again, we will do it again. We call ourselves patriots but are willing to subject the country to 4 years of hell because we think that our limited political self-interest is better served by letting the country go to ruin than to support our chosen Party even when it is not perfect. That's not patriotism and it is hard to logically distinguish it from the kind of tactics liberals will use to advance their own interests.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Two points on which I evidently was unclear in my argument:
1) Your repost talks of Reagan being the likely nominee in 1980 regardless of the outcome in '76, and with that I wholeheartedly agree. But it is not at all clear that he would have been elected president without the spectacularly failed Carter administration record to run against (think 'Misery Index"). If Reagan had been constrained to defend, or at least not attack a failed administration of his own party, he may well not have won the election in 1980. Can anyone argue that America, and the world, were not better off having had 4 years of Carter and 8 years of Reagan than having had 4 more years of Ford and 8 years of Mondale?
2) The behavior of the minority party in Congress is also very different when that party has the White House. If McCain is in the White House, I think it is very likely that overall federal taxation will be higher in 2012 than it would be if either Democrat were in the White House. As the opposition party (assuming we can maintain a working minority in the Senate) Republicans can far more easily block aggressive programs proposed by the left than they can if they have to fight a Republican president aligned with a Democrat majority. It isn't impossible (think McCain Kennedy Immigration bill), but far more difficult. And it requires a very strong minority leadership, and our bench isn't very deep in that area. And it leaves a party's message to America visionless and in disarray (look at today).
First on the list in the McCain administration will be the inane carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems to fight the political fable of anthropogenic global warming. That will be a big win with the media and McCain's 'maverick' positions always seem to be guided by a compass that always points to media-love.
I was in the revolution. I worked hard for Ronald Reagan in 1976 and 1980/84. This is the first time in my life I've had to deliberate on whether the 'right' move is to let the other guys win. Most likely, I'll just end up holding my nose and voting for McCain, as I had to do with Bush41 in 1988. But please don't misrepresent my view as putting partisan interest above good of the country. As a conservative, I firmly believe my partisan interest IS what is best for the country.
F.O.V.
Posting from Fly-Over Country
..won't win. Mark my words, the Dems have that line on video tape and they will play it over and over and over in the general election. All the voters will hear about this election is that McCain is crazy and wants a 100 year occupation.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
saying that the key is casualties. We have had troops in Germany, Korea, and Italy for 50 years, but nobody clamors for them to end the "occupation". His point was we must win the war and the peace, it matters little whether a soldier is stationed in Iraq or Bosnia, what matters is if they are getting shot at.
We have a huge military, those troops have to be somewhere. I don't care if they are "occupying" Iraq or Japan, I just want them safe and the threats to this country dealt with. I know you know this, but when false memes are put out, they must be refuted, that is politics.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
How could you expect any true conservative to vote for McCain?
I have voted for a Republican since Reagen in 1980. I will stay home this year if its McCain. Hes nasty and condescending. I dont care if Hillary wins. Spare me this crap about spending. Thats a joke. Nobody cuts anything in Washington ever. Wake up from that dream.
And the number of "conservatives" who have no problem with Big Government and Pork Barrel Corruption is really worrying me.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
There are plenty of Republicans who don't care about Big Government, but all conservatives do care.
Opposition to McCain is NOT support of Big Government.
Fred Thompson/Zell Miller 2008
said that spending shouldn't matter. It's part of the "If McCain agrees with it, it can't be conservative" effort going on among ABMers.
I understand that you can be against Big Government and against McCain. But it seems convenient that so many ABMers are all of sudden not bothered by spending ("nothing will happen," etc). I don't know if it is disingenuous or the effect of Bush's control of the Party. But whatever it is, it marginalizes those of us who do care.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
in can crowd out more efficient private spending, but the primary negative to spending is taxes. Taxes negatively constrain the economy and should be kept to a minimum.
If the deficit is a reasonable percentage of GDP, and GDP is growing--spending is not a big deal, except for the fact that once DC says its not a big deal, it will spend to a point where taxes are raised.
I respect your point of view my friend, and often agree with you on many things, however I believe federal spending is bad for three very important reasons:
1. It often expands the total number of government employees at all levels, and as that headcount grows so does the union dues flowing into AFSCME, and by extension into the campaign warchests of Democrat candidates for office.
2. It expands the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy.
3. It empowers politicians of both parties to create elaborate patronage schemes with OUR money that allow them to keep getting reelected into perpetuity.
Yes, taxes are important in that they misdirect resources from the private sector (especially from capital formation) to the public sector. I agree that it is important to starve the beast too, but I also believe that supply-side tax cuts end up bringing more revenue into the Treasury than before they were enacted, which enables politicians to spend even more if left unchecked.
I could see this was going to come back and bite us someday when we fell a handful of votes shy of the 2/3 necessary to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment back in 1995. Now after the way we blew it under Frist/Hastert/Bush on spending we are going to have to hope that a guy like McCain can save our party from losing credibility on the spending issue.
Either is not conservative at all. I actually doubt that any conservatives would support either...but this is RedState...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
will vote for McCain in the general election? I contend that they will not vote for him in the general.
John McCain has a lot of baggage that will be brought up. The Dems will even bring up the Keating 5 thing. All they have to do is cause doubt in the minds of people. And he would not recover.
Why do you think the liberal NYT is endorsing McCain? Because they know he can be defeated. I bet they won't endorse him in the general.
I don't trust McCain. He has stabbed conservatives in the back too many times. If he is elected you can be sure that amnesty will come back to haunt us.
I trust Romney that he will do what he says he will do. He has succeeded in everything he has done. And I believe that he could win in Nov if he is nominated. He is a decent man and I don't care if is Mormon or not. He has some of the samae values that I have.
I hope he stays in and fights for the nomination. I will be rooting for him.
Why will McCain do well with Moderates and I's, because he drives far Left loons and Hard Right Republicans up a wall. Guess what Joe Six pack is neither a hard left loon, or a Hard Right guy. In short an appeal to moderates and I's.
If McCain starts beating the drum on spending, in the time of a recession ether here or the economy turning down, I think the message will resonate with the public.
Hillary/Barry O's message will be we need more taxes more spending, blame Bush. McCain and Bush are not two peas in a pod by any means, and people know it.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Let's face it, this looks like it should be a good year for the donkey party. We have two chances to win the presidency, in my opinion. The first is that the Dems make a huge mistake and nominate Hillary. That's not a sure win for us, but if we can't agree on a consensus candidate on our side, we can surely coalesce around defeating Hillary Clinton. Our other chance, is to nominate John McCain. Because he can attract moderates and independents, he has the best chance to beat Hillary and is our best bet against Obama who I think is nearly unbeatable if he's nominated. Romney would get crushed by Obama or Hillary. Heck, polls show him getting crushed by John Edwards.
In the end, I support John McCain not only because I admire him and agree with him on most political policies but also because he is our best chance to win in November.
this...
All of my life, I have been instructed never to swear an oath to my country in vain. In my former profession, those who violated their sworn oath were punished severely and considered outcasts from our society.
...and his acquiesence in John Kerry's well-known and self-admitted consorting with this nation's ENEMIES while still serving as a commissioned naval officer. His denigration of the men of HONOR whose boots Kerry isn't worthy to lick was the icing on the cake.
That spells political expediency to me any way you cut it...a singular compromise of the high-minded and commendable principles he espouses.
It just doesn't compute and Anne Coulter was spot on.
It computes perfectly if you, you know, actually pay attention to what he ACTUALLY SAID.
You say: ..and his acquiesence in John Kerry's well-known and self-admitted consorting with this nation's ENEMIES while still serving as a commissioned naval officer.
Which is total nonsense. He did no such thing. He said, REPEATEDLY, and he said it again just recently, that he objected to the swift boat vets attacking Kerry's SERVICE IN VIETNAM. He said, basically, that they had no right to try to denigrate his medals, they had no proof, and should shut up about them.
He ALSO said repeatedly, and again, repeated in the last week, that what he did AFTER HE CAME BACK WAS OPEN GAME. He specifically and pointedly said, many times, that he had no problems with the swifties bringing that up.
Frankly, I agreed with him then, and I agree with him now. There's a world of difference between calling into question medals with no hard proof, and attacking someone for public statements they made and things they did outside of the battlefield.
I think it honestly shows the absolutely maniacal obsession with McCain hatred that comes from some of his opponents. The second he called ANYTHING they did into question, he was throwing in with Kerry.
If we have reached the day where the end justifies the means, and we aren't allowed to criticize the means without disagreeing with the ends, count me out of whatever group you're part of.
McCain was right on this then an now.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
that McCain campaigned actively for Kerry's opponent in 2004.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
"I am,..., under no illusions about the nature of a McCain presidency, which would undoubtedly lead to a lot of bad consequences for conservatives on a whole range of issues and would almost certainly lead a divided and demoralized party to a bloody and potentially disastrous schism by 2012."
I'm in the "never McCain" camp (after voting for every Republican since 1968) and I couldn't have made the anti-McCain case any better than the quoted sentence. Also, forget the polls, he's unelectable. The reality is that he will be swamped by the Democrat and not because some conservatives will sit out (they will). He will be potrayed as old, cranky, and a little off. Did you remember Caine Mutiny? The media loves ole John now. By November, they will have him looking like Lt. Cmdr. Philip Francis Queeg searching for his strawberries.
"I would rather have clean government than one where quote first amendment rights are respected..."
John McCain at http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/4/29/111841/988.
Here it is, plain and simple: Conservatives go out and vote. Don't stay home. Be part of the process. BUT - you knew it was coming - don't vote for McCain or any of the liberals. Make this about the write-in name. Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter. Write their names in. Let's drive that percentage up. Not to win, mind you, but in defiance. So the Conservative voice isn't lost among the Liberal or moderate hordes descending upon us.
R.J.
Look if we go down in flames let it be for something.I don't have a RINO t-shirt. Vote in as many conservatives as we can in congress and the house,but the rest of the World looks at our Leader.Go Fred!
Perhaps nominating McCain would be a good thing for conservatives. It would finally give them the chance to leave the party with good reason and build a free-market party of their own.
Look. With McCain on the top of the ticket, it is going to be a bad year for Rs in the House and Senate. And those that remain after the November Massacre are going to have to eat a lot of poo sandwiches for four years in the name of party unity--even when the leader of that party sticks his thumb in their eye at every opportunity. They might be better off campaigning as something other than an "R" in a year like the one I expect to see.
Full spectrum conservatives have a narrative all their own that is a proven winner. Reagan did it--twice. Gingrich did it on a massive scale in 1994. If the strongest case you can make for a guy is his appeal to liberals and moderates outside our party, you are looking in the wrong direction. Isn't this the time where we should be looking for the candidate who best meets our ideals?
If enough straight up conservatives would be willing to abandon the new GOP--this principle free Democrat-lite GOP that chooses it's candidates more by how they poll than by what they think--and be willing to start fresh without the earmarkers and amnesty supporters, the free speech opponents and class warriors, and instead advocate for consistent conservatism--they can survive this November stronger.
They would be liberates so that they would not have to vote for a bad amnesty bill because it was pushed by their President, or could honestly stand up in opposition to McCain Feingold style restrictions on free speech. Much of the energy of the activists who do the heavy lifting in our Party would be with them, and would have something to fight for again, instead of something to tolerate.
Maybe it would be good. I am not a "take my ball home" type at all. I have worked for every candidate I have been eligible to support. I couldn't even imagine doing so for McCain.
One McCain supporter I know told me after Florida that it was time to deal with the fact that "fundamentalist social conservatives" (which I do not consider myself to be) have held the party hostage for too long and McCain would show them the door with his third way candidacy. The greatest candidate of the third way, Bill Clinton, never earned himself a majority and was begging to be considered relevant just two years after he was first elected. Hardly the model for a party builder. Maybe it's time someone left the earmark toting, free spending Republicans behind and started plotting the "fourth way" to the Presidency--building a Conservative Party for America.
You are going to tell us Romney supporters to be grown-up and suck it up for McCain by basically insulting Mitt Romney, talking about him no better than the worst of Democrats, the man that has received more than 1/3 of all republican votes cast and a good chunk of support from avowed conservatives?
You sir are a PR moron.
People keep telling Romney supporters to calm down, I think I just witnessed the the McCain faction telling the Romney "morons" to take a hike.
Good luck without us!
(by the way, when you put a word in quotation marks, such as "moron," it means that you are citing someone directly. i mention this because it's not clear to me that you know it, since i don't find "moron" anywhere in dan mclaughlin's diary.)
Seems like the McCain group is trying to intimidate the Romney group... Get lost...Gideon.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
i meant that specifically for you. thanks for the english lesson - "moron".
All the interesting and good comments I have read from above, on why only McCain can win the General Election, don't seem to be in balance with our current real world experience. For instance, how do we square the fact that it is clear the ex-"First Lady" as well as the current candidate for "First Husband" (isn't that ironic) as well as the entire "Clinton Machine" want(s) desperately to run against McCain.
Some would say "no the Clintons' don't want to run against McCain." But when was the last time you remember the Clintons' saying anything positive about anyone, much less anyone they might be campaigning against, without an ulterior, selfish and covert motive? I'll hold here and give you and me a minute to think about that . . . . .
I do grant you the fact, that when Bill Clinton talks about the potential of the "Most Civil Presidential Campaign in History" breaking out, (McCain vs. Clinton) we do not know much about what and how Bill defines the term "Civil". At one time, when listening to President Bill, I myself thought I was not in need of his help in understanding "terms ". Such as the sophisticated and highly intellectual term "is", or as they spell it in Washington D.C. "is" or even in Alaska where they use the icy version of the term - "is".
If comments from the mighty and feared political machine from Arkansas, indirectly endorsing McCain for the Republican nomination, don't make you and me scratch our collective heads - I think we all need to expect that we are going to spend the next 10 months not understanding how in the world the Clintons' play this game. It could be possible that those of us who are not clear why the Clintons' endorsed McCain, at this point in the campaign process, that we don't understand what the Clintons' are up to already!
It is going to be a dirty campaign, at least coming from the Clinton side. It is also clear that the Clintons' are concerned about the possibility that they could be faced with a clear spoken, successful, super smart, well respected, once married person to try and dig up dirt on.
From where I stand, it is very clear that Romney has proven he will not be an idle bystander when they (the Clintons') start shoveling dirt. Romney also places the Clintons' at a huge disadvantage, because their pile of dirt is without a doubt the biggest in the "World's History of Piles". (Please remind me, when we get finished here, that I need to check if the Guinness folks have been able to keep up the Clinton's running "Years-To-Date" totals in pile building.) It is understandable why the Guinness folks are behind in their Clinton totaling efforts, but they surely have gotten up to the early 90's, when the Clinton's pile took the lead among "World Class Piles of . . . well you know.
See, that just doesn't add up . . . Since the Clintons clearly want McCain - I surely couldn't be that naïve. Please help set me on the proper path to election reality. I do so much like facts, as many of you have offering the earlier "Comments". But facts, to be helpful and especially upon which I can take or suggest someone else take any action, need to "fit" into the reality the world is presenting us.
Can you imagine the burden we would all feel if, by our actions or in actions, we gave the Clintons' their choice of who to run against in the General Election? You know each of us could probably be arrested for contributory negligence in building a "World Record Pile", and all from Attorney General John Edwards. "Say it isn't so . . . ."
Note to the IRS: If Mrs. Clinton does get elected President of the United States of America - all I have said here is just in good fun! - OK?
Note to the my wonderful Wife and Children: Don't worry, the front gate at the Federal Penitentiary - Fort Leavenworth, Kansas is only 638.3 miles from our front door! Don't forget Tabatha - she shouldn't have to stay at the Vets while you are visiting.
Politics is about choices, not perfection.
The fact is, if Republicans win in November even in this historical moment, it will totally demoralize the Democratic party of death for years to come; might even make them embrace conservative principles out of sheer self-preservation. That alone is worth a McCain presidency, however un-ideal.
Democracies by nature cannot self-destruct in four years. It takes decades for that to happen. Win in November, and achieve small goals that McCain can accomplish in 4 years like cutting govt spending and keeping the terrorists on the defensive, promoting life, invest in energy technologies, build the border fence, and in the meantime we prepare for 2012.
Don't give the Democrats hope. Bury them now. We can do it. Don't blow this chance.
This article at NRO is right.
Huckabee never really had a chance and continues to have no chance in winning the nomination. Why does he continue in the race? He serves as a spoiler for Mitt Romney, someone that Huckabee truly hates. Going into super Tuesday, Huckabee will take conservative votes for Romney and thereby ensure McCain's nomination.
In retrospect, this role of "Anti-Romney", has been Huckabee's role all along. By winning Iowa, Huckabee took away Romney's momentum for New Hampshire. Without Huckabee in the race, Romney would probably have taken Iowa, and with that momentum Romney possibly could have taken New Hampshire and thwarted McCain's rise.
I admit that this is all supposition but to me it rings of truth. Huckabee's seemingly insignificant run may have changed the course of history, not because Huckabee ever could have been elected, but because his presence allowed a McCain victory.
Is this all accident? Probably. But who knows? What motive would Huckabee have in fighting against Romney? That is simple, religion.
People voted for him because they liked him, same as the voters in New Hampshire voted for McCain because they like him (evidence is 2000 primary).
Romney was on the ticket in all those races, and the voters chose someone they liked better. Get over it.
If Romney was half the candidate a lot of people claim he was, he could have ran away with this thing from the start. The FACT is that he didn't meet expectations that his campaign had set for itself in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida. He has flaws, ones he couldn't spin or satisfactorily dodge all the questions about.
Huckabee's motive for staying in to play the spoiler is likely because he doesn't like Romney on a personal level after all those ads Romney ran against him in Iowa. I can sympathize with that. It would be pretty tough to have to sit there and have some rich guy from Massachusetts blanket the airwaves with ads about how you let a murderer out of prison in Arkansas to go murder some more, and then not even have the money to run a response.
Jimmy Carter never had a chance either. Neither did Reagan in '76.
Huck had as good of a run as anybody who wasn't tier 1 from the beginning, and it's actually very possible for him to wind up as VP because of it.
Heck, it's possible he could force it. If he keeps McCain from getting to 1,100whatever, he could just say "Well, I'll throw my guys to you if you pick me as VP." He'd do it, of course.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
So you admit that Huckabee's motive for staying in the race is to play the role of Anti-Romney. Ultimately, we agree, you just spin it differently.
And Huckabee played the Anti-Romney candidate far before any ads were played in Iowa. What do you think inspired Iowa Evangelicals (a group that politically would be allied with Romney- in contrast to McCain) to turn to Huckabee? It is all about religion.
Does anyone really think that Huckabee, someone who served as a Baptist minister for many years and has a Doctorate in theology, really knows nothing about Mormons (as he claimed when asked if mormonism is a cult)? Or that he innocently attacked some esoteric Mormon belief (comment on Satan and Jesus being brothers)? His underlying hate for mormonism is barely beneath the surface.
You could be right, except for the fact that evangelicals have been voting for Romney more than Huckabee lately. It had to do with electability, not religious bigotry. Huckabee seemed like he had a chance in the beginning; as he wasn't able to broaden his base, he lost the support of evangelicals gradually. See the trend continue on Big Tuesday. If anything, it has to do with economic class, not religion.
And increased educational specialization means that he doesn't know much about other religions (unless he studied them specifically for his higher degree). Know any neurosurgeons that have anything more than a basic knowledge of immunology? Or American history Ph.D's who know much more than random facts about the founding of Pakistan? ...
Huckabee and McCain both hate Romney because they think he campaigned dishonorably. That's all. Unless you seriously think McCain is a religious bigot, too?
. . . maybe I am over-reading the whole Evangelical anti-mormon thing. I have heard so many anti-mormon comments over my life that I have begun to think that the negative beliefs are widely held.
I'm sorry if my comments offended you and I certainly didn't mean to offend Evangelicals in general (although it sounds like I did).
I'll be sounding off now, much to your pleasure I'm sure.
Sorry to tell you this, but there are a large number of conservatives that will NEVER vote for McCain. While I think he would be better than a Hillary/Obama, I think he would be too effective in working with Dems to pass terrible laws. While Dems would do the same, the consequences would fall on them instead (ala Jimmy Carter). I want a conservative who will fight for conservative values, and John McCain will not. At best he might be a Harriet Myers president. At worst, he could be a David Souter president (and I don't just mean judicial philosophy).
Richie Rich