Redstate

McCain isn't perfect.  But no candidate will be.  Depending on your view, these are the drawbacks of major candidates:

Pro-abortion: Guiliani, Rice

Unelectable Senators: Brownback, Allen, about 50 others

Not running: Bush, Owens, Sanford, Pawlenty?

Votes for pork-barreling in Senate: Brownback, Allen, about 50 others

Throw in national security credentials and you're left with only McCain who meets those criteria: pro-life, electable, anti-pork, strong national security creds, and running.

So proper weight must be given to different characteristics.  Is it more important than one disdain the media (President Bush) or have a long pro-life voting record (McCain).  Is it more important to be electable (Guiliani) or have undeniable foreign policy creds (Rice).

We probably shouldn't be nixing names off a proverbial list this early in the process.  I still contend that Govs Bush, Sanford or Pawlenty would be top choices but they aren't running.  Give me a choice between pro-abortion Guiliani and pro-life McCain and I know who's getting my primary vote.

And for those who really dislike the idea of McCain winning the nomination, I recommend that you find some other Rs to start fighting the obscene pork-barreling and overspending that is going on in Washington.  Only Coburn and Kyl are fighting as hard as McCain to make a difference on this quintessential Republican effort.

Ok, I was not clear.  Of course if given a choice of McCain and five other unelectable pro-choice Republicans in the primary, you know I'm a huge McCain supporter.  But we have time to do better.  I'm just stirring the pot out of frustration arguing with the diehards.

As far as the unconscionable spending.  Yes, McCain is against it, but at times this is just positioning for effect, so his track record is not pure.  Whereas someone like Coburn, as you mention, is clearly doing it for the right reason all the time.

I'll cool off soon.  But my favorite liberal socialist nutjob is also a huge McCain supporter, why?

But my favorite liberal socialist nutjob is also a huge McCain supporter, why?

Mainly his views on economics. He might as well be a member of the French communist party. He sees robber barons and fat cats everywhere. He is a class warrior. He does not believe in supply side economics. Remember, he voted against the tax cuts. These views disqualify him from the job IMO.

I would say his temperament also disqualifies him from the job.

I suspect we will end up with someone not on the list anyway. It is still too far out to make any judgements about who the contenders will be. I know I had no idea that GW was going to be the guy back in 1997.

McCain or any other liberal republican would cause me to sit out the election.

Allen, Tancredo, Gingrich or maybe even Jeb Bush would be fine candidates.  We don't need any liberal republicans sitting in the white house giving the media talking about about how he represents all conservatives.

What is McCain's problem with freedom of speech?  What is McCain's problem with the US Constitution?

Because of McCain we can't run radio commercials within 60 days of an election that mentions a politician's name.  To me this is exactly like the NAZI Party of Germany in 1933.

Besides, McCain does not have a chance of winning.  Two days ago Rush Limbaugh called McCain a Democrat.  This is a bad sign for McCain.  Rush is America's Truth Detector.

Pull over, buddy. Godwin police. The first guy to bring up the Nazis automatically loses.

McCain's staff calls his DC office:  wolfslayer

Rush was sounding confused and could only pop up one name for President two days ago when he was demonizing McCain.  Rush said Allen, maybe.

Bush 41 said he could live with Jeb as President but Mrs. 41 said Jeb shouldn't run.  I think Mrs. 41 is just trying to help Bush 43, like she always does.

Jeb is too tricky for Democrats and declared Florida, Bush Country.  Which would come in handy in '08.  I moved to Florida just to make my vote count.  If Jeb was running in '08 he would tell everybody he probably won't, trust me.  Bush 41 said it's better to fly in under the radar.  Another Floridian said, Sometimes the darkness can be your friend.

Post Katrina, it's clear.  It's TIME for a hurricane President.

Vote Republican, Vote Bush 44

McCain or any other liberal republican would cause me to sit out the election.

Every single time McCain is mentioned in a diary someone trots out this meme...

Really, really tiresome...

Once again let's review the numbers:

John McCain

ACU lifetime rating: 83

National Right to Life ('03-'04): 82

John Birch Society ('04): 90

Christian Coalition ('04): 83

Concerned Women of America ('04): 100

American Security Council ('03'-04): 100

ACLU: 0

Naral: 0

Can we all just agree to drop this whole "I'm more of a Republican than you" game? Or the "I'm more conservative than you" game?

Please???

I'm a huge supporter of Jeb Bush, and believe he's done an outstanding job as governor of Florida. Unfortunately, he can't run for re-election due to term limits in Florida.

What I don't understand is why he doesn't run for the Senate in 2006--he'd be a shoo-in against Nelson! Unless he really plans to run for President in 2008, and doesn't want to be "tied down" in the Senate...

The Bij is on to something here. McCain isn't all that liberal, and he is solidly pro-life, and consistently votes to cut government spending.

What we need is somebody who can beat Hillary, and the latest polls I've seen show that McCain and Giuliani can beat her. McCain appeals to Independent voters so much that he could probably win states that Bush narrowly lost, such as PA, MI, WI, MN, maybe even NH and ME. If he wins these states plus all the states that Bush won, McCain would win with well over 300 electoral votes. No other Republican is favored over Hillary.

After all the backlash on this site against Harriet Miers a few weeks ago, if President Bush doesn't get to pick another SCOTUS justice by the end of 2008, who would we want to choose the next one--McCain or the pro-abortion Giuliani? If neither of them, it could be Hillary giving us another Ginsberg...

By the way, Hillary's support is down 5 points in the latest Rasmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm).

25% Definitely Vote For [Hillary]

40% Definitely Vote Against

28% Depends Who [sic] She Runs Against

With these numbers, Hillary would need 21.5% out of the "depends" people, or 77% of independent voters, to win. McCain could easily capture 23% of Independent voters (probably better than 50%), and would probably be the GOP's best chance to retain the White House in 2008.

We should all encourage Howard the Coward (Dean) to keep on screamin' :)

I have long been convinced that the next POTUS will be either Rudy or McCain, largely because either of them would complete the McKinley analogy that Rove has been touting for five years.

Without getting into the details, Rove believes Bush is a modern-day McKinley.  The parallels are astounding.  Both McKinley and Bush followed a two-term philandering Democrat.  Both won two close elections by uniting largely contiguous regions of the country.  Both led a GOP that was largely "pro-business" on economics and "hawkish" on foreign policy.  Both ran against a Democratic party that was "populist" on economics and isolationist on foreign policy.  Both increased their margin of victory ever so slightly in their second election.  Neither is considered a great charismatic leader.

Here's where things get interesting.  TR was never meant to be president.  McKinley's veep died, he needed a replacement, and Mark Hanna (McKinley's Rove) decided to tap TR, the NY governor, in order to get him out of the hair of the NY GOP establishment, who, naturally, were going crazy with TR at the helm.  History, as it often does, had other ideas.  McKinley was assassinated shortly after his second term began and TR became president.

Like McCain (and maybe Rudy), TR didn't really fit into the liberal/conservative spectrum of the time.  He was an interventionalist on foreign policy.  He believed in the market economy but thought that in order to make the market work more efficiently, the state had to get more involved, not less, due to the fact that the natural market forces of competition had been screwed up by the trusts.  Don't know what the "social" issues of the day were back then, but TR isn't remembered for any stances on those issues, and, interestingly, neither would a President McCain or Giuliani be remembered for those issues.  TR embraced a "progressive Republicanism" that had its biggest support in the upper midwest.  This is probably most similar to today's South Park Republicanism.  Interestingly, both McCain and Giuliani are leading the field in every poll of upper midwestern Republicans and both are largely believed to be able to sweep states like MI and PA in a race against Hillary --- something that Bush couldn't do in either of his elections.

I still think Giuliani is more likely the present-day TR due to his strong fiscal conservatism (he's far more anti-tax than McCain), his support for conservative gov't reforms, his unwavering support for the war on terror, and his ability to compromise with socially conservative leaders instead of running against them.  I don't doubt that either McCain or Rudy could provide the right sort of judges provided they are convinced that doing so is necessary to keep the support of the GOP base.  If pro-choice New Englander Bush 41 could give us Thomas, a working-class Catholic guy from Brooklyn like Giuliani could surely give us another Roberts or Alito.  

That said, I'm sure that either McCain or Rudy would go on to win the next election and both would probably yield an intra-party fight on a number of issues in 2012 or 2016, but that seems inevitable at this point.  The real question is this: can McCain possibly be the GOP standard bearer in just over two years despite being disliked by so many in the current establishment?

Re:. Remember, he voted against the tax cuts. These views disqualify him from the job IMO.

He voted against the specifics of the Bush tax cuts but not against tax cuts in general, and he proposed an alternate tax cut plan, which would have shifted some of the budget surplus (remember that?) to the military and to a fund for Social Security Reform. Perhaps if he had been president in 2001 and had gotten his plans through Congress we would be in better shape in Iraq and on our way to Social Security reform.

Was and is that they were too slanted towards the rich and introduced an amendment cosponsered by Daschle to kill the cuts to the top brackets.

The stuff about SS reform and Iraq are just Democrat talking points. He is as good at regurgitating them as Daschle was. Maybe he should be the next Republican nominee. I'm sure he has the time.

That being pro-life was all there was to being a Republican. I must have imagined the rest of the platform. He has taken some important and very unRepublican like stands in the last few years. That is why many have a problem with him. I could care less about some group's lifetime ratings.

Ratings are arguably more important for the Senate and Congress.  Trust and character are what wins the nomination for President.  Although, it would be difficult not having the Pro-Life bloc for a Republican candidate.

That is the problem, don't you think, with a few maverick votes?  Your record is still fine.  But you burned up some trust if the protest vote was for publicity.

"Ratings are arguably more important for the Senate and Congress."

Riiiight... Let's make sure that evidence doesn't get in the way of the vitriol.  

And please re-read the ratings I listed above:  only 2 of the six groups are primarily concerned with abortion.

I love the argument that only a hardcore conservative could win the GOP nomination.

Again cue Dr. Evil: "Riiiight"...

Exactly one out of the last 5 Republicans Presidents has truly been a true conservative.

Have people forgotten our last Republican POTUS was a pro-choice, country club Republican who referred to tax cuts stimulating the economy as "voodoo economics"?

When it get's right down to it. Republicans want to win. Rudy and McCain are sure winners. If you honestly believe that George Allen (who I would not put in the so-called hardcore conservative camp) could win in 2008, I've got some speakers that fell off the back of a truck to sell you.

We will end up rallying around one of those two and win in 2008.

Notice that what I am saying is what you say as well.  One true conservative out of the last five Presidents.  And he won primarily on character and vision, not a voting record.  

I agree we want to win.  Which is why, in my opinion and prediction, McCain has no chance in the primary.  And that position seems to be reflected in current polls as per the Cook bit.  

But its a long way off.  And, no vitriol included, it would be hard for Rudy to get primary nod as well, without the single issue Pro-Life bloc.

I guess you can accuse me of being the pessimistic critic.  I haven't picked a horse yet, just handicapping the field.  But the fun has begun!  I'm sure we'll be banging this around for a while...

barring drastic change and reagan showed that unapologetic conservatism wins landslides even before there was a Rush, Fox or internet.

Add to that the war issue and the far left takeover of the dem party

and consider that even with the the high water mark dem turnout with 24-7 msm campaign alliance attacks against bush, a rather lame candidate, we won by millions.

The roe effect means that their are less libs every year as they abort so many voters, plus it is likely that the repubs will get more black voters every year.

conservatism beats liberalism every time its tried

for Chenny to kick of and then Bush get bumped off?

But I too see a significant battle on the horizon.  Reagan conservatives are not entirely satisfied with the outcome of their efforts.  

You propose that Giuliani could be reasonable with regards to nominations.  It still leaves us in a quandary.  The majority in the party know what they want, yet rarely see that result on abortion or spending issues.  In fact, what politician can you name that advocates cutting entitlement spending?  And look at Bush, who made it explicit in his campaign concerning the Supreme Court, still drifted regarding nominations.

I think that is part of the coming battle you might be seeing.

That is it.

"Unapologetic Conservatism"

Not moderates, or compassionate conservatives, but honest straight forward persuasive conservatism.  But I think you may need a clear voice, a simple persuasive style for '08.

Oh, it will happen eventually.  I'd guess 2016.  It happened to the last two alignments and it will happen to this one as well.

In 1912, push came to shove between two distinct factions of the GOP majority of that time.  The GOP coalition agreed on an interventionalist foreign policy and on the advocacy of pro-growth fiscal policies.  They disagreed on the level of government involvement that was needed in the economy, with the TR side believing that the only way to free up the market was to use the state to bust trusts, etc, and the Taft wing feeling that the government should step aside and let things sort themselves out.  The coalition that began with Lincoln had finally reached critical mass and it exploded.  The Taft wing won control of the party, lost the WH, and the next generation of the Roosevelt wing ended up leading the Democratic Party back to majority status.

In 1968, the Roosevelt farmer-labor coalition broke.  It agreed on economics.  It didn't agree at all on foreign policy or social issues.  When the party tried to nationalize those issues, the hawks and social conservatives bolted, and the next realignment began, with these new Reagan Democrats paving the way for a new GOP majority.

I'm not positive what the battle lines will look like when the Reagan coalition finally goes bust, but it will probably be similar to both of those instances, with two distinct factions that each feel they are the true conservatives battling it out for the GOP.  One side will win in the short run, but in the long run, the GOP as a majority party will lose.  

No worries though.  We're talking a couple of decades of history here.  This won't happen overnight.  I expect a Republican House for another 20 years.

McCain mentioned rolling back the President's Medicare Bill after Katrina.  And while you're searching around for strong fiscal conservatives, McCain was the only Senator to call the Energy and Transportation Bills "pork" and one of only 3 Senators to vote against both (along with Coburn and Kyl).

McCain bests Guiliani on fiscal record.  He has decades of votes against prok spending to run on.  He is also rather reliable on judges.  He voted for Bork and every nominee that the President has nominated for all levels of courts.  Both have strong standing on foreign policy although most of Guiliani's is based on his 9/11 experience.  McCain actually has experience working with foreign policy.  Even on social issues McCain is pro-life, anti-same-sex marriage while Guiliani is the opposite and has many on-the-record comments about his pro-choice stance and his pro-Roe stance.  It would take a heck of an effort to convince me that he would appoint anti-Roe judges.  

The only major place I see Guiliani looking better  is that he hasn't upset "the base" yet.  That's a plus, but I'm not sure it's enough to make him a better candidate.

Re: I expect a Republican House for another 20 years.

That would be unusual, based on history. Lincoln's coalition didn't even hold the White House permanently in its heyday (Grover Cleveland broke the GOP lock), despite having the bloody shirt of the Civil War to wave against the party of "rum, Romanism and rebellion". And neither did Roosevelt's (with Eisenhower giving the GOP the White House for eight years).

Re: The stuff about SS reform and Iraq are just Democrat talking points.

Huh? Democrat talking poimnts? suince when is Mccain a Democrat. You might be right if you saiod "McCain's talking points" but the man is a GOP senator, at least admit that. And last time  checked the Democrats are not famous for talking points in favor of either Social Security reform or the Iraq War.

Who says you have to be a Democrat to repeat their talking points. We heard all of these excuses from the Democrats during the debate.

The war thing was played up very big on the left... second only to the class based argument.

Its exactly the fact that he does upset the base, and appears happy when doing it that disqualifies him.  Count the number of Sunday shows, and tally whether you view the comments of McCain as conservative on those shows, then tell me he is still a good candidate.  Its stinks of duplicity with even the least political conservative.  You can not do this, and expect to win the primary.  When it gets ugly, voting records don't sway, quotes do.  Like this from David Limbaugh in 2000:

"I think it's more likely that they (media) approved of what McCain was saying. In addition to promising them more power through McCain-Feingold, he was calling all Republicans corrupt and hypocritical and vocally promoting several popular liberal causes."

I don't think the base forgets that.  And how can he repair it?

The ratings are an extremely crude (useless, really) tool for measuring a candidate's performance, though I suppose they tell you a little more than his astrological sign.

Actually, we don't disagree.

I was referring to the House of Reps, which I expect to stay in GOP hands for awhile.

The White House will of course fall into Democrat hands in either 2012 or 2016 and stay there for two terms under a moderate Dem president.

McCain didn't come close in 2000 and he has done a whole lot to alienate the base since then. It is hard to see where he has been winning any friends in the party since then. He has been busy burning his bridges instead.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?print=yes&id=8906

When I asked McCain last week about his views on the estate tax, he made clear how opposed he is to repeal: "I follow the course of a great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who talked about the malefactors of great wealth and gave us the estate tax. I oppose the rich passing on fortunes." That does not fit the basic Republican mindset that wealth should not be punished and that earnings should not be double-taxed.

Another good example.  What is he thinking?  If he is looking for votes outside the tent, do you think this is the way to do it?  Or does he really believe in redistributing wealth in this case?  He comes around to the right vote, yet burns the base in the process, I don't get it.

The anti-McCain wing is going to have to find an actual candidate to beat him.  Just saying he isn't good won't win... I heard Kerry tried that one.  I think McCain would beat Guiliani in a primary after voters got to know Guiliani better.

Furtermore, McCain is in a good position with regards to the primary schedule.  He'll skip Iowa again because he opposes Ethanol pork subsidies (which gives him a chance to point out his anti-pork creds).  He wins NH again because that is the wing of the party that likes him the most (fiscal conservatives) and then on to SC.  Last time he won over 40% of the vote but lost to Bush.  Now GOV Sanford and SEN Graham are bigwigs in SC and both are big McCain fans.  GOV Sanford isn't running for Prez because McCain is (at least that's the rumor).  If he can pull off SC, he's the unabashed front runner with high name recognition and fawning media.

Who is going to stop him?  Brownback, Allen, and the other Senators are too boring or Senatorial.  The top GOVs have said no (Bush, Sanford, Pawlenty).  The other possibilities are pro-choicers (Guiliani, Rice).  It's all fine and well to say that the base dislikes him, but that doesn't mean he won't win.

All Is Vanity

1  The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

2  Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

And I can't blame him for being concerned about the wealth distribution in the country.  I think he needs a refresher course in economics, but his intention is good.  Stephen Moore had a good article in the OpinionJournal recently about McCain's economics.  One reassuring note was that "His foremost economic guru is former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm (who would almost certainly be Treasury secretary in a McCain administration). He's also friendly with the godfather of supply-side economics, Arthur Laffer."

I'm not for anyone yet.  And I am close to your view on the other candidates tossed in the '08 garage campaign salad.  But I can't agree with your assessment of how McCain would fare in the primaries.  Iowa is important.  Lessens the presumed victory in SC.  Which I won't give you until I see some field.  And the poll numbers aren't good.

So that begs your last hidden question, who will stand up next year?  Thats what we need to sniff out... There must be other leaders in our party willing to make the plunge.

From your linked piece:

"His 2000 presidential bid was capsized by Christian conservative primary voters in South Carolina."

SC primary, no.  And my overall perspective is not one of confidence generation for the conservative from this piece.  Just opinion.  But it ends with:

"...(about knife fights and such) there is no one I'd rather have next to me than John McCain. Whether he's someone who should be steering the rudders of the American economy is a different issue altogether."

Mr. Moore is no McCain fan.  In fact, I was quite surprised at the positive parts of the piece.

I do think that McCain has many more fans than readers of RS or other activist sites would expect.  And until a viable alternative comes forward, I would say that McCain is in a better position now than he was in 2000.  Strong name recognition, high popularity ratings, and a distance from the administration that seems to be helpful right now.

And when it comes down to McCain or Guiliani in SC, I'm not wure "Christian conservative primary voters" are going to flock to the pro-Roe Guiliani as fast as they did to the pro-life Bush.

If I were as anti-McCain as many activists, I'd be looking for the "perfect candidate" pretty intensely.  Because without him or her, McCain is in a good place electorally.

to victory in SC.

stop laughing and Ill see you in 2008

my predictions are usually correct esp in my home state

I'd say it is a much better possibility than Brownback or Allen winning the primary.  We'll see how Romney threads the needle, but he's in a better position than most.

And he beat McCain handily. McCain has done much to alienate the base since then. What is it that puts him in such a good position to win?