Redstate

I think McCain may be in for some surprises when real people start voting.

http://www.myelectionanalysis.com

I'd like to see:

1. people on this side stop using the pejorative RiNO,

2. people on that side stop using the pejorative DiNO,

3. people on both sides stop frowning upon compromise (note while there can be no compromise on principals, there can, and should IMHO, be compromise on most issues), and, finally,

4. all those iNO's start calling themselves Centrists, so that people can start disparigingly calling them CiNOs

When they stop acting like RiNOs, I'll stop calling them that. What is the compromise postion on protecting pre-born children, protecting traditional marriage and victory in war? Because the Democrats oppose all three.

I am not happy with anyone running right now. However, if you want a lot of pro-life Republicans to stay home, then by all means nominate Guiliani.

I'm leaning towards McCain myself. He's right on the war and on life.

And he can win.

Can't say that for some of the others.

or, as I alluded to above, a centrist.

Some things there can be no compromise on, (see my "principal" comment above, although with at least two of your three points above, "compromise" is a word we're likely to see alot of. Amongst those who want victory in Iraq*, there is likely to be much disagreement and compromise on what is the proper course of action to take. On the "defense of marrige" issue, I think the likely end state is one where the law definse marrige as between a man and a women, while same sex partners are granted comparable privelages through civil unions. Even on abortion, I don't think you'll ever see an abortion ban that doesn't make provisions for rape, incest, or the health of the mother. It seem that most Americans favor some compromise here.

You say when "they stop acting like RiNOs, I'll stop calling them that", but the most common target of thet shot is McCain, who by your own admission is in the right place on two of your big three. My big probelem is that I see "RiNO" as dirty code for "(-R) who doesn't agree with me". I read it as name-calling, which I think is never productive, and as far as I can tell generally frowned upon here at RedState (except for RiNO, of course;)

*(only the most fringe Dems "oppose" victory in Afghanistan, infact many have complained loudly since day one that the war in Iraq pulled resources away from what in January 2003 was, arguably, the more important conflict)

...quick when 'RiNO' started showing up in comments and reminding myself that at least this way it's out in the open.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Is CiNO, for "Conservative In Name Only". This applies to most Democrats, and McCain, who are talking the conservative talk, but not walking the conservative walk.

As far as name calling goes - for example, if someone calls another person "Jack", I think that is OK if that is who they are.

PS - In case CiNO DOES catch on, how can I put that little trademark thingy beside it...?

A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are made for.

It was an betrayal of the republican party membership and its principles. If you are looking for the definition of RINO, try starting there.

To paraphrase the Christmas Carol, we can hide the word RINO, but they live. Oh, they live....

There is no Republican that I have met with whom I could not find points of disagreement. I don't call all of them RiNOs; or many for that matter. If you act like a Democrat but have an R infront of your name, well, then it's not an insult to say your are a Republican in name only, unless you consider being called a Democrat an insult. Such is simply stating the obvous. John Mcain is not a RiNO in my opinion. Maybe he is to others. A good example of a RiNO is a sitting Republican senator that won't even vote for the party's presidential candidate.

As to your comment about principles: How am I to know what is a principle and what is an issue in your estimation?

As far as Iraq, there may be compromises on strategy, but not on the goal: victory. If Democrats want us to win, then they should probably stop trying to sabotage victory. I see no compromise there.

Gay Marriage: A Civil Union is not a compromise, it is a capitulation.

Abortion: Either children deserve the protection of the law or they don't. The left will never accept restrictions unless they are useless. The exceptions you mentioned taken together are useless. My view of compromise on this subject is to overturn Roe and let the states decide. Other than that, I will never accept the premise that some lives are worthless and I see no way to compromise given that principle.

Incidentally, I think the argument from liberals that we misdirected resources from Afghanistan to Iraq is garbage.

McCain is far from perfect and it would take little to persuade me to support a better candidate. But who?

Romney: Is he really conservative? No foreign policy experience.
Guiliani: Anti-second amendment, Pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage.
Hagel: Please, be serious.
Tancredo: Can't win.
Hunter: Can't win.
Gingrich: Can't win.
Brownback: Can't win.

Someone else enter the race: PLEASE?

Republicans who consider the abortion issue an annoying distraction from other issues simply aren't getting the it when it comes to SoCons. SoCons are not kidding about this issue and if you disregard this and nominate someone like Guiliani you are looking at potential mass defections or no shows. I don't know that I would defect because to me the War trumps everything and someone like Guiliani is far better than an Obama or a Clinton, but I would think hard about voting third party. Very hard.

With respect to civil unions, do realize that 99% of a "civil union" can be accomplished with simple contracts? Unless you expect to outlaw homosexuality, CU or their legal equivalent are a foregone conclusion.

Abortion. SCOTUS overturns Roe. Abortion law goes back to the states. Where, for the most part, it will remain legal. Unless you pass a Constitutional Amendment or a federal law banning abortion. What's the probability of getting 60 votes in the Senate in my 22 year old son's lifetime? Hint: none.

Iraq. We are about to be able to stop blaming Democrats and start blaming Bush if his last gasp doesn't work out. More troops without a big change in the RoE won't make it and Bush isn't going to change the RoE.

Sorry to be the bearer of reality. If you've got a plan to accomplish your goals, I'd sure like to hear it. But I think you've just got high sounding goals.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Civil Unions: I am not opposed to anyone contractually arranging their affairs the way they please. If gay people want to live together, will their assets to one another, or what have you, that is their business. This is all available now. What we are talking about is the legal recognition of an equivalent status to hetero marriage; be that gay marriage, civil unions or whatever. I think stopping such is realistic. Many states have enacted laws to protect marriage. This subject will eventually end up at the feet of the Supremes. We will see how they decide.

Abortion: You are correct that an amendment is not a remote possibility at this time or in the conceivable future. I never said that it was. But overturning Roe is indeed a possibility, and in my view, eventually this will happen. While many states will enact laws to continue to allow abortion, I think even in the most liberal states there will be ground made on some abortions. Take partial-birth abortion. I don't know of many states that would not outlaw this gruesome procedure. In states in the South, there is ever reason to believe that a ban on post viability abortions is a reasonable outcome. The bottom line is we can do a lot better than the blanket license to have an abortion at any time for any reason, including partial delivery. I don't see this as just a "high sounding goals". I am an incrementlist on this issue. We will win. It will just take time. No compromise on abortion. It is wrong and we should go down saying so.

Iraq: Even if Bush eventually fumbles and falters in Iraq, it does not change the fact that we are struggling as we are due in no small part to the concerted efforts of the Democrats to make us lose. If we do lose in Iraq, we should do so having demanded that we fight and win the whole time. We should be dragged out of Iraq kicking and screaming. Not by coming to our "realistic" senses and compromising and giving cover to the Democrats on the retreat. We should be able to honestly say that we never gave up.

I do agree with you on the Rules of Engagement and on additional troops. But, again, I blame Democrats. Or what do you suppose has created the pressure for these idiotic rules of engagement? What do you think would happen politically if we took of the gloves? And please don't lecture me that Bush should do it anyway. THAT is not realistic. Personally, I have long advocated that any Jihadi taken with IEDs or any IED component should be shot on the spot. Period. Shot right in front of all their watching buddies. I think the IED thing may have never taken off if this would have been done in the beginning. But, reality is reality.

I don't know how I ended up defending McCain. I'm really just not a fan. I am heartened by the possible entry of Keating and Gilmore.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

As far as Iraq, there may be compromises on strategy, but not on the goal: victory. If Democrats want us to win, then they should probably stop trying to sabotage victory. I see no compromise there.

The current RoE are not designed to produce victory, they are designed to avoid bad publicity. As a consequence we do not get victory and we do not get good publicity either; what a deal.

An additional 30,000 troops with the same stupid RoE merely results in 30,000 more people to arm, house and feed. If we took off the gloves and put in place RoE that were actaully designed to produce victory we wouldn't need 30,000 more troops, the ones already there are more than capable of producing victory.

John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.

I blame the left.

I'm leaning towards McCain myself. He's right on the war and on life.

And he can win.

If we start focusing on who we think 'can win', we'll end up with the Republican version of John Kerry, and then 2008 will make 2006 look like a good year for conservatives and Republicans.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

However after seeing the names coming up for the Dems in 08 I'm feeling far more confident that a real conservative Republican "could win". I don't know that Newt's the guy, but there has to be better than McCain running around somewhere.

Nominate Tancredo and see what happens.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

At least Tancredo wouldn't put ALL 50 states in play!

And I'd actually consider voting for him. Briefly, until I remember that he's a tariff guy, and then I'd say no, heh.
--
Run like Reagan!

You honestly think Tancredo would do as well against Hillary as McCain would? You've got to be kidding..

raw votes, and more electoral votes, than Tancredo. Either will lose to Hillary, current polling aside. In my book, a loss by one vote is no better than a loss by 10 million.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Let's hope it doesn't come down to that and we get some better options.

He is actually a pretty conservative Senator, despite his lapses in matters such as Campaign Finance (which Bush signed) and Immigration Reform (which Bush supported).

And I agree with this... I consider his voting record acceptable (though far from stellar). I have no desire to see him removed from the Senate.

That said, all indications are that he would absolutely NOT be a conservative POTUS. Voting records are nearly irrelevant when considering someone's fitness for POTUS. What really matters is how the man leads and what he leads on. What his priorities are. McCain fails horribly on all of those points.

I think rather than risk losing the Presidency to the Democrats, we should focus on electing a center-right Republican candidate that can win big and have long coattails.

We already got that. How well is it working now? Center-right is a great way to describe the current occupant of the WH. The people are ready for a change. Now is the time to run a real principled conservative... if we can dig one up somewhere. That has the potential to actually get people excited. Another Bush clone "compassionate conservative" with a different accent is not going to excite anybody.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

cannot appeak to cbtrists, independents and even some Democrats, the GOP will lose. Good grief, look at the last election! You guys lost the independents big time! Put old Karl Rove out to pasture-- he's dead wrong about the base winning elections.
Come 2008 you need someone who is not a conservative ideologue (but still has conservative principles of course). McCain would actually work despite all the whining go one here, or maybe Romney, if he doesn't paint himself too far into right field seeking the nomination.
And the problem with George Bush (in electoral and public opinion terms now) is not his ideology or lack thereof. It's the perception (with some basis in reality) that his administration is incompetent and not very bright.

You guys were flabbergasted in 2000, 2002, and 2004 at how we were pulling voters and victories out of seemingly nowhere.

So Karl Rove can't fix the Congress, too, and so we should boot him? You'd like that, wouldn't you?
--
Run like Reagan!

And it's still wrong. Bush II is a mushy moderate. Bush I was a mushy moderate. We gain nothing by running mushy moderates because the media will still portray them as extremist right wingers.

If the evil genius Rove was really interested in winning elections with the base, maybe he shouldn't have spent so much time on Clinton-style triangulation. The last 6 years have been filled with it. It worked for Clinton because he's a Democrat. It didn't for Bush because he is a Republican. It will never work for any Republican. The media won't allow it. Just as the media won't allow any Republican administration to be portrayed as anything other than "incompetent and not very bright."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

It's the perception (with some basis in reality) that his administration is incompetent and not very bright.

Repeating it doesn't make it so! Leftist elitists WANT to believe this President is stupid...tell yourselves lies long enough, maybe you will really believe it!

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

Romney is '08s Reagan. He is articulate, conservative, and has a proven track record. Not to mention he can win in the northeast if he plays his cards right.

this may seem a bit petty, but awhile back Gov. Mitt, out of state and out on the campaign trail, drew some good laughs taking shots at Liberal Massachusetts*. Now, I live here. I'm well aware of how liberal the place is. Be that as it may, I find something very distasteful about a sitting governor taking cheap shots at his own state and it's citizens in an effort to advance his own career. Just me, though.

*I know how much value RedState places on direct quotes and citations, but I can't for the life of me find this one anywhere. Anyone who knows the 6th Army Value will just have to trust me on this one.

...at the expense of California liberals during his various presidential campaigns, and I'll bet the farm that he took more than a few potshots at California liberals as governor. No links here either, but I'll believe you if you'll believe me.

Call me back when Mitt starts making fun of Obama's ears.;)

He's apparently a pretty good campaigner, he's OK on a number of issues, and he apparently has no baggage (if the landscape thing is the best anybody can do, he is squeaky).

He's no Reagan. There is no Reagan on the scene or likely to be. Just stop looking. There's no Lincoln either. And the Dems will never find another FDR. Those were particular men for their times, they will not rise again.

Unfortunately, there are an abundance of Jimmy Carters in both parties.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Re: Unfortunately, there are an abundance of Jimmy Carters in both parties.

One of the truest statements I've ever seen on Red State.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Romney`s track record is one of support for gay rights and abortion. Personally I don`t buy it, but I hope that his conversion has been real. With the timing and explanation, though, I wouldn`t buy a new car from him nevermind a used one. You can argue that he`s conservative now, but you really don`t want to use his track record to support that claim.

You've been led to believe that, but if you review Romney's record as governor, and not just the decade-old words people want you to focus on, you'll see he governed on the side of life and values in nearly every case.

Til just now, I had assumed that McCain had little to no support among conservatives.

Perhaps I was wrong.

I will vote for whomever survives the primary.

I'm hoping for Romney. My second choice is probably Rudy G., but I can live with McCain.

The state-by-state polls indicate that Rudy G. should be considered the favorite right now, not McCain. McCain has to gain ground in states like California, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. Rudy G. has a great position going into this race. He just has to walk the tightrope between right and center and hope that the inevitable dem smear campaign doesn't cut him too deeply.

Is go out and actively meet with christian conservative groups and convince them he would appoint strict constructionist judges
and support federalism. That might not win their support but would allay their worst fears. AT THE SAME TIME, he must articulate a program for illegal immigration, and pledge to use the veto against spending.

Despite his popularity he actually has the most uphill struggle. However, if he did all of this, I would vote for him.

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

as governor of California he publicly opposed at least one anti-gay rights initiative and was weishy-washy on abortion. Plus he was associated with Hollywood, and had a divorce in his history. Yet he still won votes from the Moral Majority types on his day by being right on the big issues (the Cold War and taxes).

Foes of Rudy won't have to do any smearing, even though his love life will have plenty of oppo fodder. Merely mentioning where he stands on the issues will be enough.

His stands on social issues make him anathama to about a quarter of the party, and his stands on economics will PO another sixth. Many casual observers don't know him outside of his Mayor 9/11 persona, so his numbers should drop as things go along.

He's got about 60% of the party who'd consider vote for him; he'll need to just about run the table to do that.

SoCons that he's OK - judicial appointments! - than McCain will. Rudy understands leadership and he's a leader. McCain understands legislation and he's a Senator.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Largely because I'm composing a series titled, "They All Suck," why in the name of blue blazes you think a man whose job history (until private life) has been all about centralizing authority, enforcing central authority, and being fervently in favor of socially liberal outcomes, will be remotely acceptable on judicial appointments.

I mean, our shared hatred of John McCain notwithstanding, I actually respect you, so I'm curious.

(I have to admit, in the interest of full disclosure, that I mistrust liberal Catholics more than I mistrust almost anyone else to actually adhere to things like settled law, tradition, and clear delineations of power. Call me silly.)

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

"liberal Catholic" comment. I mistrust liberal Evangelicals more than anyone. I'll give a pass to anybody on stuff I'll hold against an Evangelical forever.

I won't bother to discuss McCain, I agree 100% with Erick although I've a few more spears I've thrown in the guy, but Erick is close enough for political work.

With respect to Rudy, I don't like his personal life, were he Hillary we could rightly call him a slut. I don't like his beliefs on life. I really don't like his 2nd Amendment position. I don't like his stance on gay rights & gay marriage.

The things I do like, in no particular order are:

• Judicial appointments. Rudy has said that he would appoint Roberts/Alito constructionist judges (on his website, I can find a link if you want it). He also said he would like Scalia as CJ. That covers my concerns on abortion.
  
• Roe. I don't like Rudy on abortion, but if he'll appoint R/A/S justices and judges, Roe will get overturned. I want Roe overturned for more reasons than just abortion. It's really bad law and we need justices who will reverse the "law making" tendencies of previous courts.
  
• Abortion. With respect to abortion, it's my opinion that the best that we can do is overturn Roe and send the issue back to the states. I don't think either an amendment or a federal law outlawing abortion is in the cards, so Rudy's "opinion" on the subject is not an issue. The only way I can see abortion actually being "outlawed" is for a state to pass something like a homicide statue for the unborn. A conviction goes to SCOTUS and is upheld. From that base, we would have a legal rationale to pursue further state laws or federal law. My above SCOTUS point about who Rudy will nominate covers this base.
  
• Leadership. Rudy's got proven leadership ability. He proved he can navigate the administrative caves from his job as US Attorney - he's really the first high profile US Atty. His accomplishments as Mayor of NYC (more later) were phenomenal, he actually governed as a conservative in one of the two most liberal electoral climates in the US. He fought crime and made NYC the safest big city in the world, he slashed the welfare roles, he slashed taxes, he led an economic boom in the City. And then there's 911.
  
• Executive experience. Rudy is, hands down, the most experienced executive of all the potential candidates. I like Romney's experience, but I'm much more familiar with Rudy's. Being Mayor of NYC is a bigger job, in terms of budget, number of employees, etc. than is being Governor of all but a very small handful of states. As Mayor, when he came into office the City was on the verge of bankruptcy and nobody had any hope of a successful outcome without huge influxes of either State of Federal money, or both. Rudy managed a bail out and ran the City at a surplus for most if not all of his two terms. I mentioned crime, but he inherited a police force that had no morale and wasn't much more than a department store security force. He turned them into the best police department in the US (arguably, I know). He got tax cuts, huge changes in welfare programs that cut the welfare rolls by over half (I don't have the specific numbers), and led an economic revival in a City that had been, at best, moribund for 30 years. His accomplishments came in the face of a City Council, government employee unions and political establishment that Che would have felt right at home with.
  
• Ability to prioritize. Because of his experience in NYC, Rudy understands that an executive can only do so much. I think he will have a pretty short agenda and will lay out an implementation plan that will work. I don't know what will be on the agenda, other than security, and that is the main reason I count myself as a "Strong Leaner" for Rudy. I do think he will be aggressive and will big things on the agenda, and don't think he will pull the bait-and-ignore thing Bush did with Social Security. (I won't address Bush and SS here.)
  
• Bottom line. Rudy will do a better job in the GWOT than anybody, period. He's been there. I think Rudy will be good - better than any other potential candidate and 1000% better than McCain - on judges. He will be able to work the political establishment in DC better than any other candidate. He will have a short agenda and will accomplish it.

"Rudy is, hands down, the most experienced executive of all the potential candidates."

I like Rudy, but...what?!

Romney's got more executive experience than anyone running. He was the top executive his whole life, whether in business, the Olympics or government.

You mean Rudy is the most experienced government executive of all, right?

I like Romney's experience, but I'm much more familiar with Rudy's.

That said, running the Olympics isn't even in the same league with being a Governor, the Mayor of NYC or POTUS. He apparently did a good job and I'd give that job more weight than being a US Senator, but I don't consider it a particularly big deal in the experience column for POTUS. Being Gov of MA is excellent experience, but I'd be a whole lot more impressed if he had gotten elected to a second term.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I'd be a whole lot more impressed if he had gotten elected to a second term.

Get reelected, then immediately run for POTUS? That really doesn't do the people of his state any good. It's a selfish thing really, solely for the political benefit of the person. If he's going to spend the next 2 years running for POTUS and not running the state of MA, at least he isn't going to hold the whole state hostage to his political whims.

And yes, Romney also probably figured he wouldn't get reelected anyways, which would have killed his presidential ambitions.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

even Jessie Ventura got elected once. It's a matter of being able to negotiate the political minefield.

Like I said, it's not a knockout for me, I just wish he had run for a second term. Heck, I wish I had 10 million dollars too.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

even Jessie Ventura got elected once

Now there's an indictment of the guy. :)
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Re: I'll give a pass to anybody on stuff I'll hold against an Evangelical forever.

I find that interesting. The Catholic Church has some fairly strict dogamtic guidleines about moral issues like abortion. Evangelical churches (which tend to be quite independent) do not, or rather, they vary from church to church. Why do you hold evangelicals to such a higher standard when they may in fact be quite in line with their own congregation's precepts?

I've yet to set foot in an Evangelical Church that supported abortion on demand or gay marriage to pick just two SoCon issues. They are a matter of revealed scripture as far as I'm concerned.

On major issues, there's not a whole lot of variation.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

....is probably right. Most movement types loathe McCain, mostly because he never pandered appropriately, as far as I can tell.

However, I do want to note one thing on Giuliani: he is to the left of Hillary Clinton on life. Well to the left.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

This election proved you can beat something with nothing.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Actuarially he'll never finish two terms.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

It comes down to candidate X vs. candidate Y. McCain isn't perfect, duh. What about McCain v. Hillary? McCain v. Obama?

Those might be the actual choices should, heaven forbid, McCain win the nomination, and Hillary or Obama win the Democrat party nomination. You are about 18 months premature on that. Right now we need to worry about picking the best Republican candidate for the job. McCain (or any other R) vs Hillary (or any other D) is completely irrelevant at this point in the process.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

here as to whether McCain, Giuliani, Romney, or someone else would be the best GOP candidate. We'll have primaries, and may the best man win.

But whoever does win, in the general election we'll need to vote for the candidate who is not Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hold our nose if we need to, but SHE must be stopped at all costs.

The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.

For me I would say:

McCain = Absolutely not. I don't even trust the guy's judgment, so even in those cases where he is honestly trying to "do the right thing," I still can't trust the guy.

Rudy = No idea. Won't know until he starts to actually campaign.

Romney = Maybe. Really hard to say with the flip flops. But we might be able to trust him to stay flipped (or is it flopped?) in office... if he manages to stay consistent on everything this entire campaign. If not he is off the list.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

McCain's been fairly good on the war -- better, in fact, than the Bush Administration has in most respects. Don't let pique over his stance on interrogations obscure the reality that his strategic thinking is remarkably sound. Suffice it to say that if McCain's wishes had been followed, the Iraqi insurgency might well be over now.

By contrast, there is no evidence either way for Romney or Giuliani on this point.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Don't let pique over his stance on interrogations obscure the reality that his strategic thinking is remarkably sound.

Remarkably sound strategic thinking like "if we were only really nice to the terrorists we capture and don't ask them any difficult questions, our men will be treated really nice when they are captured by terrorists?" If McCain qualifies, I guess I can add Kerry to the list of sound strategic thinkers as well.

As far as troop numbers go, I don't buy it. It's easy and above all *very safe* to criticize the number of troops. If it goes well, well, more troops wouldn't have hurt any. If it goes poorly, well, that's because you didn't have enough troops. It's a win-win position for McCain to adopt, and I give him zero credit for adopting the easy win-win position. I would bet if we had 20,000 more troops there he still would've said we needed 20,000 more troops. And if we had 40,000 more troops? I bet we would've needed 20,000 more troops. It's like not having enough money for Education... it is an excuse that always works, regardless of what the levels are.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

As far as troop numbers go, I don't buy it.

See my comment on "unleashing hell" below. Your choice to ignore reality vis a via manning is, of course, your choice.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

on the war. He "supports" the war and simultaneously criticizes troop levels, tactics and calls for Rumsfeld to resign. That makes you happy because he "supports" the war and it makes the owners of his soul happy because he can be seen criticizing the Administration.

I would take silence of this kind of support.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

He "supports" the war and simultaneously criticizes troop levels, tactics and calls for Rumsfeld to resign.

Yes, no one who criticizes the Administration's prosecution of the war could actually support, you know, victory. 'Cause Lord knows, the Administration's brought us so far toward that goal.

A few days back, RS readers voted to "unleash hell" in Iraq. Between John McCain and George W. Bush, guess who actually advocates that option on the battlefield?

Think it over.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

That strategy will require a MAJOR change in the RoE. McCain's tough stance on torture and terrorist rights would instantly preclude him from that strategy.

I have no problem with criticisms of the Administration, it's the way he does it. McCain is a self serving putz.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Good point.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

McCain's been massively more hawkish than the President -- as he was in Kosovo, et al. As for his stance on "terrorist rights," your very use of the mischaracterizing phrase indicates either an incomprehension or a willful misunderstanding of that stance.

If your bottom line with McCain is that he is a "self serving putz" -- with which I agree -- then consistency demands you denounce Giuliani and Romney (especially) on the same grounds.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

I don't qualify them in the same way as McCain. McCain has made his career out of promoting things that either don't matter (that's what people tell me about his "torture" legislation) or stuff that is a negative (CFR, taxes, G14). His legislative record is every bit the equal of John Kerry.

With respect to McCain, I am unwilling to believe anything the guy says. Probably not fair of me, but that's the bottom line.

Both Romney and Rudy actually have accomplished things. Rudy turned a City around, Mitt seems to have turned a state's finances around.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Oh? McCain spent his Senate time consorting with America's enemies and doing his best to weaken the national defense?

Yes, Romney and Giuliani were both executives. McCain never was. But so what? If you think America's primary problem is urban crime, this may matter....

We are but warriors for the working-day.

the word LEGISLATIVE was unclear? I am referring to actual legislation that McCain has authored or been the principal sponsor.

With respect to executive experience, if you can't understand why that's important, there's no point in discussing it.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Re: That strategy will require a MAJOR change in the RoE. McCain's tough stance on torture and terrorist rights would instantly preclude him from that strategy.

I don't recall the US deliberately embracing torture and the like in WWII but we still managed to prosecute the war quite severely and effrectively. Are your model generals Grant and Eisenhower, or Tamerlane and Genghis Khan?

If we were fighting the current war with the same zeal as we fought WWII or the Civil War, the Middle East would be piled high with mountains of human skulls which Tamerlane would envy.

We razed whole cities to the ground in WWII, killing millions of civilians. I'm not sure that waterboarding known terrorists quite matches up to that.

You seem to have some very strange notions about how we conducted ourselves in past wars.

In no particular order, other than by war...

Washington, Grant, Sherman, Patton, LeMay, Chesty Puller. Stormin' Norman was just OK. Actually, I'm very fond of Genghis Khan.

Ike was a tactician and politician, and he was superb. He'd have been a flop without men like Patton.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

If you think this is fine, Giuliani is your man.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Rudy did some good things in New York and he did some not so good things. He came on during a time in which crime was on the wane and got credit for changing the city.

He also was mayor during a stock market boom, which is always a good time to be mayor of New York City.

I realize a lot of you guys really like him now but I don't think that will be the case in a year.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Idealism vs Realism issue that so many struggle with. Reach for the sky but keep your feet on the ground is how I like to think of it...

having said that though, McCain is not my choice.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

100% correct. Well said.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

McCain is easily trusted. You can trust him to do WHAT HE THINKS IS RIGHT. Not what is politically expedient. Not what is going to please the denizens of Redstate.

First, I don't agree that this is always the case about McCain. He does pander on some issues. Second, it depends on what kind of trust you are talking about. My biggest problem with the guy is that I don't trust his judgment. He is certainly a true believer on some things, like CFR and the need for government to step in and fix things like "the growing gap between the wealthy and the poor." That he truly believes those things is another indictment of his suitability for POTUS. If I want a true believer that is totally wrong at the same time I could vote for Dennis Kusinich or Ralph Nader.

hen when McCain actually has rock hard beliefs and sticks to them no matter what- (against abortion

I have to laugh at this... you do know he came out opposed to overturning Roe during his 2000 presidential run, right? Is that an example of "rock hard beliefs" or "stickinig to them no matter what?"
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I guess I just don't like what he thinks. ;.0
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Keating Five.
McCain is corrupt, and got caught.
The MSM will pull that up again if he ever wins the nomination and fry him on it.
He is a sucker punch, like that idiot from Dallas was in 1992, Perot, to assure a dhimmie gets elected in 2008.