The McCain Temptation
Kicking The Schisms Down The Road
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | John McCain | Rudy Giuliani — Comments (118) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Well, the caucusers have been counted in Iowa and Wyoming, and the votes are in in New Hampshire, and the candidate I have endorsed - Rudy Giuliani - has yet to get off the mat, while one guy we all buried last summer, John McCain, is suddenly in the thick of the race, and could officially claim frontrunner status if he can win the Michigan primary on Tuesday, January 15.
As a result - and I've been building to this for the past two months, so New Hampshire just brings this to a head - I find myself on the horns of a dilemma regarding the 2008 GOP presidential primaries, and I don't mind sharing it with you, dear readers: I'm debating whether it's time to back another candidate besides Rudy - specifically, McCain. I don't do this lightly; I've debated the merits of others in the field before, but I don't shed commitments easily, and my longstanding view is that, having made my choice, I won't switch to another candidate unless and until I'm decided to walk away from the Rudy camp for good. I'm still not ready to do that - but for now, at least, I'm happy to see Senator McCain's victory in New Hampshire, and I even sent a donation his way to help him take on Romney and Huckabee.
As regular readers will recall, while I supported McCain in 2000, I have been a long time supporter of Rudy, having followed his career since the mid-1980s, lived in New York City through his second term as Mayor and been through September 11. I laid out in the summer of 2005 my roadmap for how I thought he could pursue the GOP presidential nomination in spite of his pro-choice, socially liberal record and I came out publicly for Giuliani for president in February 2007. Today, I'll explain why McCain may end up being my guy after all - and why the collective impulse of a lot of us to settle on McCain is tantamount to taking the known divisions within the party and kicking them down the road for the sake of this election, even if possibly at the cost of aggravating them further in the interim.
Read On...
You Can't Make Me Vote For The Amateurs Or The Sunday Pitcher
While I would vote for any of the Big Five in a general election, I won't repeat here my reasons for considering Mitt Romney an unacceptable choice for the nomination, which I chronicled exhaustively in my "The Trouble With Mitt Romney" series Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. And I will touch only very briefly why I can't support Mike Huckabee. Back when he was a minor candidate I wrote off Huckabee due to the domestic-policy concerns laid out here, including not just his record but his priorities. Just as I was starting to reconcile myself to the idea that we could win a general election with Huck and live with his harebrained economic populism and nanny-statism, however, we got increasing evidence (see, e.g., his Foreign Affairs piece chock full of every discredited Democratic foreign policy cliche in the book) of his unreadiness to be the Commander-in-Chief. On this, I even agree with this guy.
Suffice to say that my presidential choice at this stage - as is true of many conservatives who regard national security as issue #1 during wartime - is thus limited to the three candidates in the GOP field I regard as serious grownups: Rudy, McCain and Fred Thompson. And I explained recently why I'm not backing Fred, much as I like him. Which leaves me two choices: Rudy and McCain.
Schism Today, or Schism Tomorrow?
Let's go back to my test for candidates, as set out in the opener to the Romney series:
1. Can he . . . win the general election?
2. Does he stand for good positions and priorities on the issues?
3. How likely is he to actually turn those positions into effective policy, often in the face of a hostile opposition and media and under various pressures from within and without the Party and the Beltway to back down, flip-flop or compromise?
4. How well do we think he can handle unexpected crises and new issues (especially in foreign affairs) beyond what he's campaigning on?
Regardless of the relative priority you put on the other three, the simple fact is that the best possible potential president in the world is no use if he can't get elected.
On #4, while there are differences between Rudy and McCain, I regard both of them as fundamentally trustworthy on the war, ready to step in as Commander in Chief (as ready as anyone can be coming from Congress or state/local government, at any rate) and head and shoulders above the field in both parties in terms of their credibility on this issue, to the point where McCain even won among anti-Iraq War voters in NH. Because I trust both men to protect the nation when the chips are down, that leaves the first three questions.
1. Chasing The Electability Chimera
Here's the irony: one of the reasons I had initially for supporting Rudy was that he's such a great campaigner and debater, and would be a formidable opponent for Hillary (or, now, possibly Obama) in the general election. But right now, there's growing reason to believe that McCain would be the GOP's strongest general election candidate, which I'll get to in a second. Yet, as discussed below, I still think Rudy would be the better president of the two, and that Rudy would advance more of the conservative agenda, while McCain seems more likely to unify the GOP coalition during the campaign and fracture it in office. The decision between the two, therefore, comes down to how we weigh electability against governability as well as its wages in subsequent elections.
I view electability mainly as a floor; if we have multiple candidates who can win, you pick the one you would most like to win. But electability is itself a moving and elusive target. The problem in this election is that the GOP starts in such a bad place, against such well-known and well-funded Democratic opponents, and the stakes in this race are so high (at least in terms of the war, the courts and taxes; I'm far less optimistic than in 2000 or 2004 that we can move the ball on any other domestic legislative priorities of consequence in the next four years) that electability looms larger than it has in years past.
McCain consistently polls better than any other Republican in projected head-to-head matchups, especially in the key swing state of Ohio, without which no Republican has ever won the White House (Adam C has covered this extensively). I personally don't take polls 10+ months before an election as terribly strong evidence, given the things that can change in the course of a contested campaign, but it is one piece of data to consider.
There are two considerations that carry more weight than polls, at least at this stage, in determining electability. One is gained from watching the candidate and his campaign in action. On that score, neither McCain nor Giuliani has run the best of campaigns (given their strong positions this time a year ago, neither is in the position they should be in), but both remain excellent candidates - eloquent, funny, quick on their feet, thoroughly at home with their reputations as rough-edged tough guys and long experienced in taking shots from both sides of the aisle. Both men should fare well in providing either the charisma and humor that's lacking in Hillary or the spine and gravitas that's lacking in Obama. Neither should be taken lightly in a debate.
Since it takes two to get votes (the candidate and the voter), however, the other part of the electability equation is what voters they will appeal to. And here is where Rudy's flaws as a candidate require serious thought. Two stand out. I've spent a lot of time arguing with people about these issues, but I hope nobody came away with the impression that I don't take them seriously. They are, in fact, the main reasons to worry about Rudy in November.
The first is his liberal record and positions on social issues, mainly abortion. There are some conservative voters who simply will refuse to pull the lever for Rudy, even knowing that the result could be handing the control of the courts and the rest of the social-issue agenda to Hillary Clinton. I've argued repeatedly that this is daft, but that's beside the point; the point is that it's a feature of the map as real as any other. Nobody really knows how many such voters there are, and certainly a lot of them are likely to reside in solid-red states in the Deep South. But at least some will likely be in states we need to win. There are also the "What's The Matter With Kansas" voters, for whom the pro-life/social conservative banner is the main or only reason they vote GOP. Again, it can be hard to put a number on these voters but in past years they have been crucial to GOP candidates winning LA, AR, KY, WV, in some cases OH and IA, and staying competitive in PA & MI (although PA also has a lot of socially liberal Rs, so the tradeoffs there are debatable).
If you go back to my 2005 roadmap, Rudy has actually done most of the things I suggested to try to build bridges to these voters. He's appeared at the right events, he's met with the right leaders and even won a few endorsements, he's treated SoCons with respectful and solicitous language, he's made the necessary "do no harm" promises on a host of issues and changed his positions around the margins (e.g., partial-birth abortion), he's surrounded himself with a great group of advisers on judicial conservatism, and he's beaten the drum for judges, judges, judges.
I never thought Rudy could credibly come out to call for banning abortion; but he could have run as a clearer pro-choice/anti-Roe candidate, and laid out a fuller, more compelling story of why social-issue federalism should appeal to culture warriors on both the Right and the Left. He hasn't. He blew an early debate answer by waffling on whether a 'strict constructionist' judge would need to vote to overturn Roe; a guy with a pro-life record could afford ambiguity on that question, but Rudy couldn't. I may post at some point the precise framing of the issue that I think he needed to pursue, but I no longer expect anything new on this front from him; he's stuck with the residual mistrust that his abortion position created, and we go to war with that in our nominee or we don't.
Social conservatives are the only faction of the party Rudy has a real problem with; he's run as far or further to the right of everyone in the field on national security and economic issues, he's fairly successfully used his law enforcement creds to wend his way to the middle of the field on immigration, and he's benefitted from the complete demise of any national impetus for gun control (the silence that followed the Virgina Tech shootings was tellingly deafening). Ironically, given the importance of Supreme Court nominations, Rudy could actually end up mending fences in office with good judicial nominations and fidelity to the "do no harm" agenda. But he has to get there first - so the schism comes to the fore now, during the election season.
The second electability issue Rudy brings is his personal life - and it becomes a more significant issue if running against Obama than if the opponent is the Clinton Traveling Soap Opera. I will admit that I probably underestimated quite how badly this could hurt Rudy, since it was already a very well-known aspect of his life, and one that most people could balance against his extensive public record. But what happened to Rudy is very easy to explain: a spate of stories in early December 2007 about police details for Judith Nathan during the secret portion of their affair and the collapse of Rudy's second marriage did what no story had done before, and tied the issue to Rudy's capacity as Mayor. And the result, more than anything else, was devastating to Rudy's standing in the polls:
The state-by-state results were worse, essentially driving Rudy out of races that had once looked competitive for him in New Hampshire and Michigan. It hardly mattered that most of the stories had little substance to them and fell apart on closer examination. What mattered was that it moved a lot of voters from thinking of this as old news to worrying that there were other shoes to drop. Combined with the ugly overhang from the decline and fall of Bernard Kerik, that issue as well is likely to dog Rudy going forward.
Now, there remains a good possibility that once we get down to a two-person general election race, Rudy can offset a lot of these problems by reaching into areas where the GOP has done poorly in recent years. He'll undoubtedly be competitive in states like PA & NJ that the Democrats absolutely must win. But "competitive" doesn't win elections, and so the Rudy strategy of widening the number of states in play could still turn out to be a case of just stretching resources too thin, especially in Northeastern states where urban Democratic machines have ground games that always win the close ones.
Rudy thus faces a two-pronged electability problem; McCain doesn't. The only GOP faction that really regards McCain as anathema is the immigration hawks, but I continue to doubt how large that group really is (especially the segment that voted for Bush). McCain may thus be able to cobble together a lot of different factions of the party that consider him better than the worst option in the field. His wry personality, long tenure in office, national visibility, war hero status and genuine credibility on national security all add up to the makings of a consensus candidate that may be nobody's first choice, but could keep the party from fracturing along its various fault lines long enough to hold the White House.
2. So We Won. What Do We Do Now?
So yes, I think McCain is electable, at least as electable as anybody in the GOP field. And I'm no longer sure whether or not Rudy is. And I can live with McCain as the nominee. But that doesn't mean I'm leaping to his banner, either.
First, I think Rudy would be a better and in practice more functionally conservative president. I explained this in my original Rudy endorsement: McCain has no executive experience; Rudy is the most gifted and accomplished public executive of the past two decades. Rudy is a prioritizer who wants to cut taxes and spending across the board and has a record of doing so; McCain has tended to pick even his spending battles on small-dollar pork projects (although he did oppose Bush's prescription drug boondoggle) and stood vocally against Bush's tax cuts. While I think all five major GOP candidates would be good on judges but I trust none of them except Fred 100% on the issue, I think it more likely that Rudy will listen to his advisers on this issue and try to establish a good process, whereas I still worry that McCain might prioritize his campaign finance crusade, which will never be blessed by judges who take the Constitution seriously. McCain is more likely to pursue death to conservative priorities by a thousand cuts in the regulatory agencies, environmental policy, etc.
More to the point, not only is Rudy more conservative on the issues that are the bread and butter of the President's daily business and traditional Article II powers, but it's McCain's style that worries me. We all know too well (see here and here for good analyses) how McCain has over and over and over sought to triangulate, putting himself in the middle to media plaudits, with GOP conservatives left out in the cold. Rudy, while he's mistrusted by the Right on some discrete issues, isn't like that; he's more naturally a polarizing figure who is likely to pick a lot of fights with the Democrats just because that's who he is. But a McCain presidency would likely wear down frustrated conservatives over time. The fact that he aggravates nearly everyone in the party a little can be papered over for an election season, but it will wear as time goes on, and wear badly.
McCain will turn 72 in August; he's just a year younger than Reagan when he pursued his second term. It's highly likely that after four years of him, either he will wear out and not run for a second term, or conservative patience with him will exhaust and lead to a nasty primary battle against an incumbent. If we line up now behind him, we can perhaps avoid splitting the party in this election, and the rewards, particularly due to McCain's leadership in wartime, may well be worth the cost.
But we can't fool ourselves that a McCain nomination wouldn't prevent a schism in the party, it would only delay one and perhaps redraw the lines into a more traditional moderates vs. conservatives battle. Which is one reason why, even though I've been happy for McCain's recent rise, even though I may well end up in his camp, even though I've even recently given him money, I'm not yet ready to throw my support behind the senior Senator from Arizona. The McCain temptation puts us to a choice: if we follow him into battle today and win, we will probably end up fighting him tomorrow. That may be a deal worth making, but it's still a compromise, and one on which the bill will eventually come due.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | A President Needs Foreign Policy Experience — Comments (127) »
The McCain Temptation 118 Comments (0 topical, 118 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
All of his flaws and backstabs and going off the reservation could be forgiven by me but one: While I was getting shot at in a desert on the opposite side of the world, he was whining to the microphones about what a bad job the CinC and SecDef were doing. His claim now that he is responsible for the good news out of Iraq is rubbing salts in the wound.
There were many avenues he had for getting a change in strategy, not that he even suggested one (except MORE troops, essentially the same as many democrats were critizing the administration for). There was a shift in strategy, and it involved adding additional troops, but it was not McCain's doing, it was the doing of President Bush and GEN Petraeus, and their current success is not a repudiation but rather an extension of the hard work of Rumsfeld, Casey, and the Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and others who went before.
Of all of John McCain's betrayals, this is the one I cannot forgive.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Hooah Mac is right that it wasn't just McCain, but obviously McCain isn't trying to claim exclusive responsibility for the surge. But McCain did provide essential support.
Don't forget how close the Dems got to pulling the plug on funding for Iraq. Without the remarkably stalwart support McCain, Lieberman and Graham showed, there is a good chance the Dems might have won.
the war effort for years.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
He had Rudy come to PA. to campaign for him, then he attacks McCain for not being a grandstanding uber-social-conservative. Hypocrisy.
I've been having a similar McCain/Giuliani tussle in my own mind. I've resolved that I'm going to vote for whichever is in better shape after Feb. 5 (as my primary is on Feb. 12).
Really just a great look into the same thoughts I've been having, with very little disagreements.
"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
No point in hashing it all out here.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
As a pro-life conservative, who emphasizes social-conservative issue, I have for a long time placed Giuliani in the bottom of my list.
But this line of yours sums out the argument for Giuliani:
"The decision between the two, therefore, comes down to how we weigh electability against governability as well as its wages in subsequent elections."
Giuliani has a record of criticizing social conservatives and rejecting our beliefs. But at worst, he was doing so merely for political advantage in NYC. But McCain has a long habit of sticking his finger in the eye of conservatives, and his motives, at worst, were not because it was necessary to his remaining a senator from AZ, but just gratuitously, or merely to be the media favorite.
Therefore, a reasonably uncharitable interpretation of Giuliani is that he's a political opportunist, but he'll more or less play ball with social conservatives while in office. But McCain would put a Souter on the courts, just to win the praise of the media and liberals for his "bipartisanship" and perhaps just for the gratiutous pleasure of offending the "agents of intolerance."
If so, Giuliani would keep the coalition more or less together, but McCain would fracture it badly while President.
So now Pat Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani but whole-hearted rejection of McCain is making a bit more sense to me.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Giuliani has a record of criticizing social conservatives and rejecting our beliefs.
Even this seems like a bit of an overstatement.
He may disagree with social conservatives on certain issues, but he does not demonize them or dismiss them as somehow illegitimate, does he?
Likewise, I think not sharing (all) the beliefs of social conservatives is rather different from "rejecting" them.
Giuliani is a law-and-order guy. He believes in personal responsibility. He believes that abortion is wrong, but that ultimately the decision must be a matter of individual conscience. He does not believe the Supreme Court should decide the question for us.
There is a tendency, during primary season, to exaggerate differences when they are really not so big, is all I'm saying.
I mean, let's not beat around the bush about how bad his record has been on this issue. Either you believe that Rudy is with us on judges, or you don't. But I've never tried to convince anyone that he isn't or hasn't been actively in favor of legal abortion. The argument for Rudy is that his support for conservative judges makes him functionally pro-life in the sense that judges who overturn Roe would send the issue back to the states. It's not about whitewashing his actual record.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I just don't understand how you could have ever supported him in the first place. Rudy has a lot of pluses but even against Romney as a Conservative the clear choice was Romney. Now you're on the horns of a dilemma with McCain, but where else do you have to go now that you've made Romney out to be the Devil's Tenderoni?
If he is a personal responsibility guy (and I agree that to a good extent, he is), then why did he do his best to make sure that getting a firearm in NYC - and the rest of the US for that matter - was as difficult as possible? Isn't it my responsibility to protect myself?
I must admit that, as much as I completely disagree with Giuliani on most social issues, this primary season is making him look better. While I have no intention of voting for him, my dislike definitely has diminished.
Very good point, Dan, about Giuliani acting as a functionally more conservative president than McCain. That is the catalyst behind the improval of Giuliani to me.
He also stated that what works in New York won't work in Mississippi.
By New York City standards Rudy is probably conservative on RKBA - not that that's saying much. So to the extent he was anti-gun as mayor that would reflect the New York environment; also as mayor he didn't have any control over New York State gun laws.
My take on Rudy and guns is that he won't try to impose tougher federal restrictions and he won't try to fight them either. I don't see a push for new federal gun restrictions now, so Rudy is ok on this issue [new gun control could always be filibustered in the Senate]. He'd certainly be better than Clinton or Obama.
Absolutely not. If McCain cared what the media thought of him he wouldn't have stuck so doggedly to the Iraq Surge. The media was licking its chops, fantasizing about ending the Iraq war the same way their predecessors ended Vietnam (of course the quickest way to end a war--to lose it).
I have a much simpler explanation for the media's love for McCain. He is the only candidate from either party that is a real person when talking to the media. He actually drinks alcohol when he talks to them instead of trying to stay on message. Every other candidate minimizes their contact with the media, McCain relishes in it. The media love McCain because he is terribly, unshakably honest with them.
And he's funny as hell.
It was very similar arguments that pushed me toward Rudy this summer.
The only element that you never touch on (and maybe you find it unimportant) is partisanship. Rudy is much more partisan than McCain. I think this is why he is more likely to make policy through a political lens (i.e. pick judges to make his base happy). But it is also a major reason why he went from leading Clinton/Obama in head-to-head polls to trailing them.
I think we may all be missing a significant part of the Independent frustration with current politics, both with Congress and the President. They are fed up with the political lens. They don't like seeing a party or politician choose to do something because it makes his base happy.
I think there is a lot of desire for someone who does what he thinks is best for the country. I think that's why the pork barrel corruption has been such a big deal among voters. I think that is why Obama has a chance against the Clinton machine. And I think it partially explains McCain's appeal even to people who disagree with him (NH anti-war Rs and conservatives in general).
But you covered everything else in a fair and respectful way. I wish more of our posters did the same.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Rudy slid in the head to head polls in tandem with his slide with GOP voters. Independents didn't suddenly wake up and notice that he'd spent the past six years stumping for Republicans and supporting the President.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Neither one is a conservative, so you might as well flip a coin.
I think Rudi will do well once we roll into the meat of the primaries.Rudi is doing well in the big states like NY,FL and California. In the race to collect delegates Iowa and NH really are a side show.I think Rudi is more appealing than McCain. Immigration is a big issue and I dont see McCain reversing course by cracking down on illegal immigration.Huckabee certainly wont be shutting down the border either.We just cannot continue to allow very low skill people into this country its a drain on the entire economy.
I have not officially said it, mostly because I still like my guy Mike Huckabee and I don't want to hear comments about another Huck supporter biting the dust, but I know deep down in my heart that I am voting for John McCain.
Right man. Right time. Right election.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
True conservatives ought to do everything they can to help Fred win in SC. After that, if it's another no-show for him, we ought to support Mitt as the anti-Huck/McCain candidate (as someone above put it). I don't think I could stomach either one of the latter in the general election. McCain is no conservative. Listen good to what Rick Santorum's been saying today: I used to work on the Hill, and I'm telling you, that's the sort of thing I heard about McCain ALL THE TIME. Other Republican senators wouldn't say it in public, but it's true. Even his "friends" up there know what he really is. He's a back-stabbing, media-grabbing, say-and-do-anything-to-get-attention, massage-Republicans-when-necessary-but-work-against-them-when-in-the-private-meeting-rooms-of-the-Senate kind of politician. Santorum nailed it. And Giuliani? Nice guy. Great leader ... just not an all-around conservative.
All McCain backers need to stand up loud and proud because if he somehow manages to get elected get ready for the ridicule coming your way for the things this man will do to conservatives and the movement.
When this election cycle began I knew that McCain was one of the "virtual shoo-ins" and I had no interest in supporting him. To a lesser extent the same thing is true of Giuliani, because he's just *patently not* a Conservative on *any* issue. He's a Liberal Republican.
For Pete's sake at least Romney has stated his positions clearly and I think we can expect him to act that way.
C'mon. Explain to me what the conservative position is on the following issues, and how it differs from Rudy's:
*National defense/security/the war
*Taxes
*Spending
*Law enforcement
*Welfare
*Education
*Racial preferences
I never claimed that Rudy was, in Sam Brownback's phrase, a full-scale Reaganite. He's a moderate on some issues and a liberal on others. But to deny that Rudy is a real conservative on any issue requires ignoring his record.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Will lead you directly to John McCain. Since you can't back Romney, you're going to wind up supporting him. It's not necessarily a shame, Dan, it's almost...
...
by design...
McCain could be a great president when it comes to national security and spending, however he is still the candidate that conservatives should fear the most.
Of the five candidates for the nomination, McCain is the only one who could NOT be forced to tow the line by the base. For an example of how bad that could be, think about Bush and Miers and how that could have gone! And given his desire to please the MSM, there could be a lot of infuriating days for Republics in a McCain White House.
And if all of this isn't bad enough, think of how much more of a "Maverick" he will be, considering he likely won't seek reelection.
If you are a Rudy backer, like myself, then I think you ought to stick with him until Super Tuesday - only weeks away. After all, that's when his campaign strategy will actually be tested.
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Well, that does put him in a tough spot. But then I would ask to wait until the Florida primary on January 29 before deciding to pull out.
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
I haven't checked the math but I think if Giuliani wins Florida, he'll have the delegate lead going into Super Fat Tuesday, Feb. 5; I'm voting that day and I'll be punching the ballot for Rudy.
Given how much heartburn McCain has given conservatives merely by being 1 of 100 members of half of the legislative branch of gov't, I'd buy stock in antacid companies if he managed to become the whole executive branch.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
I suspect that for each single issue voter turned off by Rudy there are three or four multi-issued voters who won't vote McCain.
It's better that we lose and still be a party.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
McCain has irked me on many issues, but at the end of the day, our troops deserve the most positively experienced commander-in-chief that we can give them.
McCAin is hands down the most experienced in dealing with the dept of def, the congress. He knows our military leaders the best. He has two of his own kids in the conflict. And he has the most visits to and with the leaders in the area.
His ability to call for, support, and shuttle through congress support for the surge is proven success.
Last, he has some credibility with us (on this issue at least), indies and conservative democrats.
Hands down he is the best leader we can send our troops and put up against "youth and inexperience" and "the queen who cut and ran".
Last, I would love to watch McCAin take Hillary on fiscal discipline. His stellar earmark record and comments like Republicans were trying to find funding to rebuild New Orleans while Hillary was siphoning millions for her rich friends in Woodstock would be brilliant theater and great for re-branding the Republican name.
No other candidate can bring that gravitas.
C'mon guys, McCain has to be the man.
That McCain has the most experience does not mean that Rudy or Fred would not be a perfectly good Commander in Chief.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I'd like to believe that Rudy, Fred or Mitt would be perfectly good commanders in chief, but why take a chance?
McCain knows intimately what is going on and what has gone on in Afghan and Iraq. He has made us all look good again with the surge.
with 150,000 of our best on the front line, replacing McCain with Rudi is like replacing a successful CEO in the middle of a reorganization. it makes no sense and is an unecessary risk.
He is my 2nd choice, too, behind Rudy, again primarily on the basis of of foreign affairs.
BUT . . . he is not as electable as you think. In the general, his involvement in the Keating 5 will be a much bigger deal. Also, his wife Cindy has a very dicey drug scandal in her background that will also get a lot of play. The combination of the two will be problem, because they have the nexus of McCain using his status as a senator to do favors for those close to him - favors that many will see as unethical.
This is a tough year for us, and none of our candidates offers a silver bullet. We have a great VP candidate - Tim Pawlenty - but I'm afraid we aren't going to find the right head-of-ticket match for him.
(b)oth men should fare well in providing either the charisma and humor that's lacking in Hillary or the spine and gravitas that's lacking in Obama,
you glossed over McCain's greatest fault, and that is his temperament. Someone once said of the senator he's great six out of every seven days. There will be plenty of seven-day weeks between nomination and the general election, and of all the candidates (to my knowledge) McCain is the most prone to fly into a rage, belittle a voter, or snarl at just the wrong moment.
Rudy has the same problem, but it is to a much lesser degree.
Like many, I'm much closer to McCain on most issues than I am to Rudy on quite a few. But when I weigh the temperament issue I am not and never will be comfortable with McCain.
Polls support that in head-to-head match-ups McCain currently is the most likely winner. But your Step Two will never materialize if McCain has a major meltdown televised from coast to coast, and this is a very likely possibility.
Even when you write
but it's McCain's style that worries me. We all know too well (see here and here for good analyses) how McCain has over and over and over sought to triangulate, putting himself in the middle to media plaudits, with GOP conservatives left out in the cold,
which makes what I believe is a false assumption that McCain would be viable by November and win, you get to the nub of why Rudy is preferable to McCain. A president must go over the head of the media to the people to govern, and a presidential candidate, particularly a Republican, must do the same to win.
McCain will not do either.
I respect your decision, your argument is fairly persuasive, but you make enough false assumptions for me to disregard your conclusion. I haven't decided yet who will get my vote, but I know three who won't.
McCain, Rudy and Hillary all have that issue; Huck is reputed to have quite a temper as well, though we have not seen it on the trail.
What mitigates this for the three Republicans is their sense of humor, which can defuse some of the downsides of that. Dean didn't have a sense of humor, and neither does Hillary.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Huckabee, but the mayor apparently has a better ability to keep it under control. I've read and have been told Huckabee is just this side of McCain on that score, but haven't seen it myself. If anyone can recall McCain's snarling dismissal of Maria Shriver before he conceded in 2000, they should just imagine such an outburst if he were the nominee. It would sink us.
I don't think I had ever before scratched my head so hard trying to answer the age old question - WTF? - that it resulted in actually yanking hair out of my head, by the roots.
Until reading this post, that is.
Well, that's one more thing to cross of the "To-Do-Before-I-Croak" List.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
How this early in the race any conservative could consider voting for him is absolutely puzzling. What are McCain's accomplishments over his entire career for the values we hold dear? Anybody?
Does anyone remember how he let the speculation run rampant after losing to GWB that he would change parties? He has spent the intervening time on the wrong side of GITMO, judges, campaign "finance", tax cuts (which he said were giveaways for the rich, check the record), spending and immigration. He was also leading the despicable charge against Mr Rumsfeld, who probably did more as SECDEF than McCain did in his entire tenure.
Think about how many issues we lost by a few votes with McCain on the wrong side (ANWAR comes to mind). He could have been the hero for this party, yet he chose to stick a thumb on our eye and shred the Constitution.
In the face of McCain's actions, how any conservative could consider voting for him is beyond my capabilties to reason.
Honestly. He wins NH and you guys get all watery-eyed. We know how well that's worked out for him in the past. What happened to the steely eyed bunch I used to know?
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
Spending? McCain's better on spending then any other candidate on the R side.
And I am sick and tired of people attacking McCain's record on Judges. His record is perfect. The ONLY gripe you people have is the Gang of 14, and you still can't prove that A. We had the votes to pass the nuclear option, B. That we'd be better off if we did. We got what we wanted. Stop whining.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
He voted for Bork, he voted for Clarence Thomas, and he voted for Alito, when none of those votes was a shoo-in. He also voted to remove Bill Clinton from office. McCain's apostasies can't be glossed over but they should not be read as proof that he's the kind of Jeffords/Linc Chaffee type RINO who heads for the door in every tough fight.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Your right Dan he's not heading for the door. McCain's the guy stealing the door handle behind our backs so no one else can get out. A perfect metaphor for his effect on our rights and Constitution.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
McCain has permanently hurt us by not helping get the Bush judges through. As with the tax cuts he did it to get some payback.
We should have used the nuclear option. When has a Republican Senate came close to using the fillibuster? If we don't use it on Ginsberg we will never use it.
He hurt us by not getting judges through when he voted for EVERY SINGLE JUDGE Bush nominated and helped author an agreement that got almost every blocked judge (the only one it didn't get through, Sadd, almost certainly did not have a majority) through?
You have an awfully illogical definition of "not helping."
BTW, I'm sure you are too uninformed and dedicated to your own, false, narrative to believe this, but it's an open secret that Lindsay Graham was sent by Bush himself to make sure that the Gang of 14 deal went through, because Bush didn't want the nuclear option used, fearing it wouldn't work and would be harmful even if it did.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
it's not an open/shut issue. Roberts and Alito got through, and a few star appellate judges did too.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I agree reasonable minds can differ on if it was right to vote for the G-14. What I have trouble believing is that reasonable minds can come to any conclusion other then it was a difficult call, and that reasonable minds can differ on that question. I'm stick and tired of McCain getting so much crap for a deal that quite obviously got us, at least, 90% of what we wanted.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
We got 90% because McCain and his Gang of Fools decided to engaged in an extra Constitutional process with Chuck Schumer.
Constitutionally, our President has the right to make ALL his appointements with "advise and consent". If this unprecedented fillibuster process was eliminated, which would have occurred without McCain's "Gang", the extra constitutionality would have ceased. Where does that lead logically? To all of those fine people being appointed.
It seems that when McCain has the chance to shred our Constitution or lead, he picks the former. Whether it's McCain-Feingold, conferring Constitutional rights on the enemy, approving judges or voting against meaningful decreases in taxation, McCain has done more to attenuate or basic Constitutional foundation. That is not only shameful, but should never be rewarded with a role that chiefly protects the very rights for which he has very little respect.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
wrong side of constituional issues. And normally clear thinkers still support him for POTUS. I don't get it.
victory? shallow
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
McCain has done more indirectly to impact government spending though ridiculous nonsense like the Patients Bill of Rights and various health care mandates. Upholding the basic Republican value of fiscal conservatism is a given; not something he should be lauded for. Plus his record on taxes is one of the worst. If you don't think that impacts spending, you need to look much closer. Ask good people like Pat Toomey and The Club for Growth.
On judges, McCain has permanently prevented fixing a process that is both unconstitutional and could have been stopped by Republicans. This could have been a major win for the rule of law and originalist interpretation he now feigns to support as part of a great charade. But thanks to "Mr Straight Talk" that opportunity is lost. Do you remember names of the decent, honest, originalist judges McCain help Chuck Schumer stop with his tom foolery? No of course you don't.
I can not think of anyone that has done more to abrogate large sections of our Constitutional Rights than John McCain.
"Protect and defend the Constitution"? He can't even perfrom that duty as a Senator, much less as POTUS.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
pork and entitlements in negative impact on the economy.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Again, this is one of those, "If the facts don't fit, make them up," posts.
To call McCain's record on taxes one of the worst is retarded. Yes, he favored smaller tax cuts then Bush, and wanted them tied to spending. Yes, he was wrong.
But to say someone who's never voted for a tax increase in his 25 years in Congress has "one of the worst" records on taxes is pure stupidity.
And I'd like to see your proof that the filibuster was unconstitutional. Let's face it: If the D's had come up with the same argument, a lot of people here would be screaming bloody murder, saying they were just using their "living Constitution," BS again. I'm not saying I wouldn't have been a yes vote, I would have voted yes on the nuclear option, but I also would have voted with the Gang to avoid it if possible, but saying that this tactical disagreement is some major deal is just proof of irrational McCain hatred.
What McCain did is preserve the ability of the Senate to continue funding the war and to consider other things, which would have been crippled by the nuclear deal. Bush knew this. It's an open secret, although I'm sure you're too uninformed to know this, that Lindsay Graham was sent by Bush himself to make sure the G14 deal went through, because he was afraid the nuclear option wouldn't work, and wouldn't be good if it did.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Don't hold back I KNOW you've got more to unload!!
McCain - not now - not ever!
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
McCain has major, major money problems. This is crippling. He has to swamp everyone else early before the money problems finish him off. This is not likely. Giuliani and Romney have too much money already to go down early. So if McCain can't win it all before Super Tuesday, what happens?
First, McCain is doing well with Democrats, but not Republicans. Note Giuliani's absence from GOP primaries where Democrats can vote, and look at who cross-over Democrats and independents voted for in the GOP primary in New Hampshire (another reason why Hillary won there - many Obama Democrats voted for McCain thinking Obama had the Democrat race locked up). Giuliani is careful not to let the Democrats vote against him in GOP primaries. Romney wasn't, and this is hurting him big-time.
The sophistication of primary voters in this election is amazing and will get great attention from the pros after November.
IMO McCain will win in Michigan, and quite possibly by a significant margin over Romney, because lets Democrats vote in the GOP primary while Hillary is the only major candidate on the Democratic side. I suspect Romney would win if the Michigan GOP primary was limited to registered Republicans.
But there are simply too many states, particularly on Super Tuesday, where only registered Republicans can vote in GOP presidential primaries, and where both Obama and Hillary are on the Democratic ballots. McCain will do much less well then because Democrats can't, and won't, cross over to vote for him.
Second, Super Tuesday is where McCain will out of money. Unless George Soros sets up a zillion more 527's and what not, and gives those a hundred million dollars to use for McCain. McCain will simply be at a disastrous disadvantage on Super Tuesday due to lack of money. And he has to start buying air-time options now for those - there is a lead time.
And McCain has major general election problems. First, his Democratic support will leave him in favor of the Democratic nominee.
Additionally McCain's television presence is far, far inferior to Obama's. IMO Obama could beat him in November. Hillary I don't know about. Her negatives are very high.
I am confident that Giuliani could beat both Hillary and Obama, with Romney doing almost as well. Fred Thompson has no chance.
Right now Giuliani's strategy looks a lot better than it did a week ago.
If Rudy can start drawing some serious votes, that analysis will look better. But there's a lot of free media out there, and if voters think it's McCain vs Huck, it won't matter as much that both are broke.
That's one reason I donated to McCain; I'd at least like to have him as an option and not drop out for lack of funds.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
The sophistication of primary voters in this election is amazing and will get great attention from the pros after November.
It explains why the "rules" and cliches have been so useless this time out.
This story indicates that Giuliani's campaign may have major, major money problems:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_SVjKSmN7LAHssYmQeRzogjggvwD8U3QU8G0
"About a dozen senior campaign staffers for Rudy Giuliani are forgoing their January paychecks, a sign of possible money trouble for the Republican presidential candidate and last year's national front-runner.
"We have enough money, but we could always use more money," said Mike DuHaime, Giuliani's campaign manager and one of those who now is working for free. "We want to make sure we have enough to win."
At the end of December, the campaign had $12.7 million cash on hand, $7 million of which could be used for the primary, DuHaime said Friday. He disputed the notion of a cash-strapped operation and said Giuliani continues to bring in money; several fundraisers are scheduled this week in Florida."
It looks more and more like all the major candidates are hitting walls. The next two weeks will be very interesting.
If anything, it's probably a cash-flow problem. Rudy isn't nearly as wealthy as Romney, but he could still cut himself a $5million dollar check if he really needed to.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Giuliani's money problem is that he already spent all his money buying his television ad time in all the important Super Tuesday states.
He's in no danger of going silent.
I've got the same problem. I'm sticking with Rudy unless he's clearly out of the game, however, because he'd be better at kicking a$$ against Dems in Congress.
That said, I'd be fine with McCain.
My current list would look like this:
1. Giuliani
2. McCain
.
3. Thompson
.
.
4. Romney.
5. Duncan Hunter
.
.
.
.
.
6. Mike Huckabee
I'd vote D before I'd vote for Ron Paul.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Just ask yourself why the media loves him. Ask yourself why he's so eager to appear on the most liberal cable news network. And ask yourself how someone who's spent his life making compromises with the other side of the isle can possibly be the man to take *ownership* of the conservative party.
Just keep asking yourself these questions, and things will fall into focus for you.
Good luck on your choice.
It is an absolute shame to see so many compromise their beliefs, some of them deeply held, in order to secure another 4 years. I believe their is still hope in some of us to select a Real conservative ticket, one that unites all 3 sides of conservative beliefs.
Those who are compromising I have to ask, what else will you compromise? Didn't we once label the Democrats as sellouts? If we select McCain and he wins we have absolutely no one but ourselves to blame for it.
I would much rather we run a conservative ticket, not a RINO ticket, and if we lose, at least, we go out with the dignity of knowing we held firm our beliefs and didn't sell out just to win.
We live with the price of defeats for decades.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I'm getting a little sick and tired of people defining what a conservative should and should not believe. I'm not sure what your beliefs are, but a lot of the people in this thread have tried to define what a conservative is..
Well, I'm a conservative. But I firmly believe the internment camps on Gitmo are wrong wrong wrong. And I agree with McCain that we should have standards that have firm lines drawn in the sand against torture.
I'm a conservative. But I will not pretend that this whole Iraq war was not screwed up from the get go, whether it was justified or not. Bush and most especially Rumsfeld had no idea what they were getting into and went in with far too few troops. It was a screw up from the beginning and I will not blindly pretend that Bush is my hero.
I'm a conservative. And I used to think the Republican party cared about fiscal responsibility. Nope.. GWB threw that one out the window as well. The Repubs have spent like drunken Democrats.
I'm a conservative. But I believe existing embryos could be used for stem cell research. Please stop equating fundamental Christianity values with Conservative values. And please stop equating Conservatives with neanderthal Creationists that believe the universe is 6000 yrs old and that evolution is a fairy tale.
So, by backing McCain I'm not compromising one thing. And, I AM a conservative. And, I will vote Republican as long as it's not Huckabee.
I was going to write a post defending the decision to invade Iraq, as well as pointing out the total success we had in the initial invasion. But then I got to your rant about Creationists. If potshots at fundamentalist Christians are your way of proving you can have an intelligent conversation with others, I'd suggest you rethink your strategy.
-
NARF
It just bothers me a lot that fundamental Christians think they own the Republican party.
As far as the Iraq war goes, I wasn't arguing against the decision to invade. I said it was conducted poorly. Of course the initial invasion was a success.. it was against a rag tag force that deserted their units or surrendered quickly.
The shock and awe campaign nearly totally destroyed the infrastructure. So what was the plan? The administration felt they could start with a clean slate and rebuild Iraq quickly by throwing money at it. How stupid.
Then they failed to secure the borders. Chaos.
The Iraq war has been an utter debacle politically. And let me make this clear, that statement should take nothing away from the courageous men and women who fought, died and/or were injured there. They have done an amazing job given that the idiots in Washington had no workable plan.
Jerry
Big surprise it will be to ones who say we all walk in same direction to look for new chief.
Also very funny joke when you say you tired of hearing peoples say what they thinks so now it your turn to say what you thinks. Ha. Ha. Rolling in my cave. Ouch. Obsidian flakes sharp.
Now must return to gnawing bones before Big Leon get angry at paleo-grammar.
soli Deo gloria
yeah, anything that keeps hope alive! Does anybody know what the options are for watching, or listening to the debate on the internet?
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270812,00.html
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
That should say it all about what types of judges the mayor will elect. His tax plan is nothing short of incredible. He is the most hawkish candidate concerning foreign policy in the race. He has a RECORD - not campaign rhetoric - an actual record of getting things done in all areas - taxes, welfare, law and order - to improve the lives of his constituents.
And, The New York Times absolutely hated him.
Republicans should feel very comfortable with a Giuliani presidency.
thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com
Rudy is def. my backup if Romney can't win. He may have issues with the social cons but I'll take him ANY day over McCain and Huckabee. Rudy has Steve Forbes helping him on the Economic policy and I think thats terrific, hopefully he'll win those big states and take the national lead back.
Whether we like it or not middle america would never give northeastern Rudy and Judy, the keys to the White House. Hill and Bill are more family values conservative than Rudy and Judy.
Rudy did not campaign in Iowa and NH because he knew he would never get elected in those states. And Hillary is going to win the big states included NY. So Rudy has nowhere to go. Sorry!
Uhh, Rudy didn't campaign heavily in those states because he knew he wouldn't get the majority of the REPUBLICAN votes in the PRIMARY. That's very, very different from getting the majority of ALL voters in the GENERAL.
If you think Wyoming or Nebraska would vote for Hillary over Rudy, you are completely ill-informed.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
I consider McCain more of a liberal than Rudy or Mitt - he is stubborn and is likely to get me and my family killed with his plan to allow 20+ million invaders to continue to steal services, maim, kill and rape through America.
He's not a conservative, a liberal, a RINO...he's a moderate.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
You honestly think that illegal immigration = the rape and murder of your family?
There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet
Yes, I sure as hell do. And you might also if, like me you had next door neighbors who were robbed and murdered by illegals who had been apprehended several times before and not deported.
Here is a clue buddy, in places like my city Houston, nearly everyone knows of, or is close to a case like this.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Hey, buddy, I am from San Diego. It's not like I've never been exposed to illegal immigrants before.
I'm sorry that your neighbors were murdered. That sucks beyond my ability to describe in this setting, and I don't want my disagreement with you on this subject to trivialize how horrible something like that is.
But at the same time, it's inappropriate to extrapolate from isolated instances to universal statements. Throwing millions of distinct people into a single group and labeling them all on the basis of the actions of the few is the rationale of racism, even if that group isn't defined by racial terms. It's the same basic mindset.
There are plenty of instances where black people (or any other group) commit crimes, but if I said that desegregation would let the blacks (or whatever group) rape and kill us all, that would be incredibly horrible and untrue. If your neighbors' killers had been black, would you be reacting in the same way?
I understand, at some level, the claim that if they immigrated illegally they don't respect our laws. But the fact is that immigration laws are not natural laws. They are arbitrary, man-made laws. That doesn't mean that they are irrelevant, but it means that they don't carry the same moral weight as natural laws. By the same token, anybody who violates the speed limit it has a beer when they're 19 also fails to respect our laws. Most Americans have broken these types of laws at some point, illegally downloading music, or exceeding the posted speed limit on the way to work, because it's more convenient for us that way. But we aren't all rapists and murderers.
I also think that we need to understand the motives of most of those who come to the United States. It's wrong to demonize an entire group based on the actions and motives of a tiny minority. Most illegal immigrants are not coming to get welfare benefits or cheat the system. Most are not coming to rape and murder. They aren't even "jumping in line," because there functionally is no line for low-skilled hispanic labor, even though we have such enormous demand for it. Most illegal immigrants come to America because they cannot feed their children, and because they know that if they come to the US and work hard, they can make a better life for themselves. Rapists and killers, they are not.
The vast majority of illegal immigrants are hard-working people with strong family values, who are less statistically likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans of similar socio-economic status. The vast majority -- and I say this both statistically and as somebody who has grown up among and worked closely with illegal immigrants -- contribute to our society. To throw all illegal immigrants into a homogeneous, monolithic group, and to project the worst abuses of the extreme minority onto the group as a whole in order to inspire fear, is unfair.
The fact is that the system sucks. Systems always suck, and this one uniquely so. The government has put itself in a position to constrain the free market and try to regulate labor supplies and demand, and it's done a piss-poor job of it. We have enormous demand for low-skilled immigrant labor, but don't provide a legal means to supply it. Then we don't secure our borders, so that our economy's labor needs are funneled through the black market, where a lot of bad eggs can sneak through. The system sucks, and we need to find away to supply the demands of the market through legal channels so that we can keep out those few bad eggs.
There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet
1 point one, why should my heart bleed for them, we don't owe a living to all the poor people in the world.
point two, it isn't just that the people were illegal aliens, it is that they were arrested several times by authority and not deported, it is exactly this sort of lack of respect for law that you advocate that led to the murders.
point three, you say we desperately need their low wage labor, absolute bullcrap! low wage laborers are exactly the type of immigrants we need least. Guess what, I don't mind paying a little more for lettuce, tacos, lawn service and dry cleaning if it means that everyone here is legal and accounted for.
one thing you did say is right, the system sucks, but it sucks because the powers in both parties, valued big business, cheap labor, and illegal votes more than they valued the will of the citizens, our safety, or the rule of law.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
First, thanks for labeling my arguments as "non-thinking." Really appreciate it. I'll try to put a little bit more thought behind my analysis this time... let's see if I meet your basic threshold for intelligent thought.
But on the line-by-line.
1) I'm not saying that we should pass out welfare checks or anything. But if people are willing to work hard to get ahead, and to contribute to our economy and our society, then I don't think that we should deny them that opportunity on the basis of inaccurate assumptions or false prejudice. An accurate understanding of what drives illegal immigration should inform our views on the subject, and at the very least it should make it harder to say "they're going to rape and kill us all!"
2) I agree with you on that. That's really freaking lame. Illegal immigrants who commit crimes while in the United States should absolutely be deported from our country. You are absolutely right, and the lack of coordination between local police and federal immigration officials is deplorable. Even a non-immigration hawk can agree with this.
But that doesn't mean that we should round them all up for the sake of the troublemakers, nor does it mean that we should condemn the majority for the sake of the few.
3) That's just really, really bad, protectionist economics. Illegal immigrant labor accounts for a substantial share of employment in some really high-demand, low-supply fields. Imposing 0-immigrant quotas, as we currently do, is a distortion of the free market that fundamentally restricts supply without affecting demand. The problem is that we simply don't have enough people to fill all of those jobs, and certainly not at the kinds of wages that make those jobs economically viable, without low-skilled immigrant labor.
We have 10-20 million illegal immigrants working in the United States. They overwhelmingly work in low-skilled industries such as agriculture, landscaping, construction, meat packing, food services, etc. These are industries that are not fun to work in, and which do not pay well enough to compete with people who have the ability to compete for jobs in other industries.
When you drastically limit supply, without a corresponding adjustment in demand, costs go up dramatically. This means that if we slash the supply of low-skilled laborers, given that demand for things like food remains fairly steady, the wages that have to be paid to secure that labor have to rise accordingly. Removing 10-20 million productive laborers from the low-skilled labor force is a huge adjustment, and it would put enormous upward pressure on wages. 10-20 million people is a large chunk of the overall labor force, and this is exacerbated by the fact that they are heavily concentrated in the low-skilled labor market, which is an even smaller subsection, and one that is less attractive to workers. Getting rid of illegal immigrant labor would cause an enormous increase in low-skilled wages, and a correspondingly enormous increase in the cost of goods and services -- not the "little more" that you are willing to pay.
And that is assuming -- probably incorrectly -- that there are enough people to fill the vacant jobs at any wage. We don't have 10-20 million consistently unemployed workers in the United States. The unemployment remains at roughly 4-5%, near "full employment" because most of those numbers come from people who are between jobs, rather than people who simply cannot find work. Among those who truly are out of work for protracted periods of time, many are not suited to the physical demands of low-skilled labor, or would be unwilling to work as migrant laborers, uprooting themselves every few months to follow the crop rotations from region to region. If we remove 10-20 million low-skilled laborers from our workforce, I think that we will quickly discover that we do in fact need them, as we not only face an enormous spike in prices across the board, but actually see shortages of important goods and services, as there are simply not enough bodies to fill all of the jobs.
Government interference in the free market is almost always a bad thing. Protectionism is the realm of liberal democrats, not of conservative Republicans.
~~~~~~
I think we can agree that the system sucks. I think that we can agree that immigrants who commit crimes, especially violent crimes, should be deported from the United States. Serious, systemic reform needs to take place. We need to be able to provide legal pathways to meet our economic demand for low-skilled labor, while closing down the black market for illegal immigration.
But we need to recognize that this is a multi-faceted issue, and that realistic solutions will need to be more complex than simply saying "illegal immigrants are bad!" or "undocumented workers are good!" We need to work towards enforcing border security while simultaneously removing government restriction of the labor market and providing legal pathways for economic success. We need to fight for economic and national security concurrently.
Right now, would-be immigrants and employers are forced to choose between economic needs and legal restrictions. There is no way for them to accomplish both. When the economic gain outweighs the potential legal punishment, it creates an incentive for illegal immigration. When the legal punishment outweighs the economic gain, it disincentivizes illegal immigration, but only at enormous negative economic consequences.
By beefing up border security and employer fines while providing realistic market-based quotas for low-skilled immigrant labor, we can achieve fulfill our economic needs while preserving our national security. Increasing disincentives against illegal immigration while simultaneously providing an alternative means for employers to supply their labor demands will cause the labor markets to funnel through legitimate channels once again, which means that we regain the ability to uphold the rule of law and to promote the safety of our citizens.
If we pursue border security without providing legal pathways for guest workers, we will badly damage our economy.
If we pursue our economic needs without ensuring that the bad elements are restricted and evicted, then we will on compromise the security of the American people.
By recognizing that both factors are important, and that they work in conjunction with each other, we can succeed in preserving and promoting our economic growth while securing the system and keeping Americans safe from those who might mean us harm.
There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet
You can tell by my screen name, where I live. 20 years ago a guy could make union level wages in the residential construction trade. Wages did not drop, and Americans didn't quit working in the industry because of depressed wages, until contractors began filling their crews with illegals. I don't buy any of your arguements.
so you admit that limiting illegal immigration will cause wages to rise? Hey guess what genius. I WANT wages to rise.
You would rather exploit third world people while driving down wages for American workers right? Then why are we screwing around with Mexicans? they are expensive, why not ship in about one hundred thousand Haitians, Sri lankans, and Mozambiquans?
then we can really screw up the wage rate.
I guess you are just some sort of racist, only concerned with Mexicans and not the hundreds of other ethnic groups who want it come into our country.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Conservatives have a chance to rally around a candidate who will actual be a leader, not just a "President."
thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com
Dan
Don't bail yet. I wrote a small blurb comparing Giuliani to McCain. Giuliani is more conservative than McCain overall.
Conservatives are frustrated. They would like to see more conservative policy enacted nationally. But with no “perfect” conservative in the race they seem to be reconsidering John McCain as a potential nominee. But John McCain is no conservative. He voted against the tax cuts and for illegal alien amnesty. He argues for rights for islamofascist terrorists and for restrictions to free speech. He wants to give economy killing Kyoto like concessions to the environmental nuts. John McCain was elected from a conservative state and chose freely instead to implement non conservative policy. Why? Self interest. He wants very badly to be president. Conservatives should instead reconsider Rudy Giuliani. Rudy was elected from his beloved home, a liberal city. And he chose to implement conservative policy. Because he knew conservative principles work best. Not because he wanted to run for president. He cut taxes, reduced spending, reduced entitlement programs and took on the bad guys time and again. McCain is proud to compromise with Democrats. Do you want a president who compromises with Nancy Pelosi? Rudy took on the liberals. No matter the cost. Because the payoff would be good for New Yorkers. Yes McCain is pro life. But with respect to abortion, Giuliani would elect originalist judges. And that’s the only way the next president can improve the abortion situation. McCain was the man who compromised with Democrats to compromise the conservative judicial nominees.
Rudy will also follow in Reagan’s footsteps. Reagan was elected because his Democratic predecessor had screwed up so badly. So was Giuliani. Both won election because some Democrats were willing to vote for them, not because they agreed with them politically, but because they knew things needed fixing. And both came in and took the opportunity to implement conservative principles that work. McCain supporters point out that he supported Reagan’s policies. But that was 30 years ago. Lately he has performed differently. Has any visible Republican been more of a hindrance to President Bush advancing conservative principles than John McCain? I can’t think of one. With a Democratic controlled congress we need a president that will take on the liberals, not compromise with them. If you are a conservative and you want moderation vote for McCain. If you want conservative policy to be enacted vote for Giuliani. No one in the 2008 race has the experience of actually implementing executive conservative policy than Rudy Giuliani.
As you know, I continue to struggle with my own feelings on this, and it was good to hear how you thought through them.
No, never, the anti-first amendment, pro-amnesty, anti-border fence, conservative judge blocking, Treaty of the Seas United Nations-supporting, anti-tax lowering McCain!!!
John McCain who is lauded as the national security candidate has voted against securing the borders every chance he had--against the fence, against funding the fence---hello terrorists under President John McCain.
John McCain supports the United Nations power grab over U.S. sovereignty, The Law of the Seas Treaty. This will empower the U.N. to control the seas and tax American countries.
John McCain coauthored with Teddy Kennedy, McCain-Kennedy amnesty and has refused to even meet with what he considers lowly border patrol agents in his home state of Arizona about grave border issues.
John McCain attacked the First Amendment of the Constitution with McCain-Feingold which is nothing more than a power grab for incumbents that disallows the American people from being allowed to hear a candidates' record before an upcoming election. This is a direct attack on free speech.
John McCain, in an attention-grabbing ploy, launched the gang of 14 which effectively cut off the ability of good Republicans to stop the filibustering by Democrats of good, conservative Bush appointed judges that will now never be confirmed.
John McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts and refused to vote to make them permanent after the 2010 deadline.
You know what, you may as well vote for Hillary. She is more honest than McCain, who whines each and every time his record is pointed out! What are you thinking???
But I bet you would have soiled yourself when the Democrats took both houses if we didn't still have the filibuster that McCain saved.
I was so mad at McCain for the Gang of 14, but in the end he was absolutely right on the fillibuster and we got two great judges.
It's nice to know some people are rational enough to see this completely obvious fact.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Apparently everyone is forgetting the FACT that John Kerry and JOHN MCCAIN killed any chance of us ever pressuring the Vietnamese and others for an accounting of our POW-MIA's.
All you military types, and military supporters, have you forgotten our lost ones already????
Oh yeah, and McCain tells us that torture doesn't work. According to him he gave his North Vietnamese captors then current, valid MILITARY INFORMATION in exchange for the medical treatment that saved his life. We will probably never know what else got exchanged by him.
Please, John McCain is NOT an appropriate selection for president by ANY party!!!
Yet another "If the facts don't fit, make them up," posts.
McCain DID NOT say he gave them valid military information. He said that he gave them information, and that he was in so much pain and completely out of his mind in sickness, that he has no idea if what he told them was right or not. He thinks he may have revealed some information that was valid but unimportant,such as the names of some people serving on the same aircraft carrier as him, but he specifically said he really has no idea what he told them, and he knows he told them a lot of false information as well. He says he remembers naming some people he knew were on the carrier with him, as well as some members of random pro-football teams. Other then that, he doesn't remember.
And the fact that you attack McCain for coming to the conclusion, as did EVERY OTHER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, FROM BOTH PARTIES, that there was no systematic abandonment of people in Vietnam, and that while it was possible, however unlikely, that a few ones were left by accident, that they were all but certainly dead by then, is unconscionable.
Quit believing in Hollywood-inspired conspiracy theories, and try trusting a man who was actually there and actually saw the evidence. I'm guessing that's more then I can say for you on both counts.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Dan Dude- Are you a serious person?
Here's the deal. Mc Cain will appoint anyone he wishes to the Supreme Court and tell you take it or leave it.(See political free speech and immigration) Granted he is anti spending but he won't have the political capital to stop the spending train. He will not cut taxes.
He has no executive experience and is not a team player. Basically ,he is a bully!
Now ,let's say the perfunctory he'll be a great commander -in -chief. Why? Because he was a prisoner once. Others also advocated larger forces and the surge so he can't take complete credit.
Look in the end we'll all vote for him over a Dem but among a group of imperfect Conservatives he is far down on the list.
I crossed Rudy off the list early on because I was afraid his being pro-choice would damage the coalition, but if Fred and Mitt are eliminated and I'm down to Huck-McCain-Rudy, then I'm going to support Rudy. I'm confident that he will appoint decent judges (as confident as I am in anyone else in the running, anyway), so it wasn't so much of a personal objection to the guy.
McCain's opposition to tax cuts (and the class warfare rhetoric that went along with his initial opposition to them) is pretty much unforgivable in my book, especially since he continues to stand by his decision to side with the Democrats in opposition. There's plenty of other black marks on his record, but that and the Al Gore carbon caps he is pushing for, simply make him unacceptable to me on FisCon grounds.
If it was down to McCain-Huck I would have to vote for McCain, but I really don't see that happening before 2/5. We could easily end up with 4 choices going into 2/5... maybe even 5 if Fred pulls off a miracle in SC.
----
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'm a big Rudy backer and I always said that though it may never happen i'd love a Rudy/McCain ticket, hopefully Rudy first, but if McCain wins this could give Rudy a 2012 push.
McCain I feel is the most stand up guy in the political world. He isn't from a family of politics, or of lawyers, he's one person I feel is an American first and a politician second. Though it was long ago, how he stood up for his men and the price he paid makes him a saint in my book, he has more guts then 99% of those in Washington and most local governments combined.
Rudy I've just personally seen more of in my life. I live a stones throw across the river to NYC and the change is amazing. The stories i'm told by my parents about how up until his term as mayor most places in NYC you would take your life into your hands if you went there. Rudy made NYC the tourist destination it was in the 50s and even though he gets bashed on it alot, i've seen what he did around the time of 9/11. If he had the chance to win a 1 year term after 9/11 New York City would have given it to him, the same NYC that would throw tomatoes at our current president. I think Rudy, despite his flaws on immigration and other social issues, is the best choice the try and unite the far right, the right, the middle and then left. Then we can all gang up on the far left and Ron Paul.
McCain is far better than Mitt or Huckabee in my book, but he has poked us in the eye too many times.
I know you vote on Super Tuesday so you don't have the luxury I have of seeing how this all plays out like I do.
You have a made a good case for Guiliani in the past, so just stick with it.
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
It seems the last three debates that is all I hear. If we all agree with Rudy, then why don't we just vote for him?
I think Rudy's only chance will be if Fred gets out after SC, which I believe he will, and does the principled thing and throws his support to Rudy. However, I understand he and McCain are friends so he'll probably go with the old sea captain.
Bob Dole redux.
Super job Dan of making good sense. You are a role model for political bloggers, relying on reason and not authority.
I have come to disagree with some, certainly not all, of your analysis on Romney. But if it weren’t for that I would be foursquare with you on this here analysis.
On 1. Aside from the offense to my social conservative comrades (which I think overwrought) the factor that most troubles me about Rudy is his personal life. But on Sir John, I do have a fear that he might branch out into economic populism and possibly even put Huck on the ticket. That would be devastating to me and send me after building a third party. Plus, by advocating the terrorist bill of (American Constitutional) rights, he is to my left on national security. Cobble? Maybe and just barely. But it spells trouble right here in River City.
All things considered I would much rather take my chances with Rudy. I would be delighted to do so and sanguine about the results.
Where his only Republican philosophy can do some good under Fred or Mitt.
He's probably best known as a deal-maker. That would suit him much better at State than Defense.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
All the cool kids are doing it.
On a serious note, I enjoyed this post. Which is a rare thing on RedState since primary season began.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
There are schisms in the party, but the big tent concept still holds. I'm pretty strong on McCain, Thompson and Giuliani. Romney has been a disappointment to me over the past several weeks, and I can't get behind Huckabee because of his economic liberalism.
but its making me question backing Fred when Mitt needs all the help he can get.
I see Romney as far more desireable than McCain or Huck and I'm starting to think that I need to leave the perfect candidate Fred and join up with Romney to stop McCain / Huckabee.