Redstate

on all 3 of those initiatives.

Props for opposing the Transportation and Energy Bills and calling for the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Let me just go on the record now as saying that I will not vote for any member of Congress for any office in 2006 or 2008 who supported the Medicare bill and does not support (in deeds as well as words) either repealing or rolling it back.

Yeah his Campaign Finance thing is an abomination, but he's a pretty solid pro-life guy, he's completely right on fiscal policy, he's for a strong national defense and limitations on lots of federal government (again, except on political speech), he essentially supports sound tax cut policy, and he would likely veto something (anything) to force Congress to cut spending.

Plus, he'd be able to smother the St. Hillary press bandwagon.  I think the media likes her over any generic Republican, but they LOVE John McCain.

He's not necessarily my first pick right now, but he's certainly turning out to be the strongest realistic option.

"Why aren't there 30-50 Rs taking these same positions?"

Because McCain is about the only one who isn't going to get tarred with the "Republican's want to steal old people's medicine" and turn the Congress over to Democrats (call me Nick Jr.)

He's not necessarily my first pick right now, but he's certainly turning out to be the strongest realistic option.

I support (from the Left) what McCain wants to do on all three counts in this diary.  That is exactly why he will not get the GOP nomination in 2008, barring a scandalous collapse of the GOP and/or economy in the mean time.  A political party can not reverse half its policies on a dime, and a McCain nomination in 2008 would do exactly that.  Fiscally, he is the polar opposite of the current Republican Party.

From the ever indispensable Kaisernetwork.org on the reaction to the suggestion of merely delaying the benefit:

According to the Washington Times, White House spokesperson Trent Duffy "dismissed the delay idea." He said, "We've made a commitment to seniors. Their lives depend on it. ... Now is not the time to snatch medicines out of medicine cabinets" (Washington Times, 9/20). White House press secretary Scott McClellan added, "That is an important benefit for our seniors that will save them significant money on their prescription drugs." A House Republican leadership aide said leading lawmakers likely will not support a delay after their efforts to approve the 2003 Medicare law and to promote the new drug benefit (Los Angeles Times, 9/20).

I repeat that I am more concerned with the lack of other Rs saying these things than with going rah-rah for McCain.

However, McCain has a serious shot at winning the nomination.  His weakness is not due to his fiscal positions or his opposition to the Medicare Bill that is reviled by most conservatives, nor his opposition to pork bills.  His weakness was attacking the religious right and they show no signs of reproachment.  He really can't win them over despite his pro-traditional marriage and pro-life views.  So his best bet is to galvanize the spat upon fiscal conservatives who are traditionally Republicans but are feeling somewhere between upset and furious with the current administration on spending abuse and Big Governmentism.  Since Dems show no sign of discovering a DLC/TNR type who can say "The Era of Big Government is Over" with a straight face, McCain has a chance to excite those voters.  And since it is the primary that stands between him and the Presidency, winning over Republicans is important for him.

These steps are the smartest thing he could be doing in that regard.

I don't agree with your assessment of where the Republican party is on these issues.

Bush and his administration certainly have their perspective, and the political hoi polloi probably agree with Bush more than McCain on the spending binge (see Tom DeLay (R-$$$) for details).

But republicans in the primaries, republicans on the blogs, and republicans in the apparatus are not real fond of the spending binge that we're on.

I don't think that we'll see any candidate running on the campaign of 'Bush's fiscal policies are brilliant, let's go for four more years!'  We'll see folks agree that the tax cuts (or some new tax agenda) need to be permanent, but they'll all rail at the growth in spending, entitlements, and pork.

So if that means that the Republican party will need to turn on a dime, I think the steering wheel has already started to spin.

he is a one-trick pony.

The only thing he's got going for him is his fiscal responsibility.

If he is our nominee, you will not see tax cuts or tax reform (voted against all Bush tax cuts).  

You will not see Roe v Wade overturned (publically stated he will "not support a repeal of Roe v Wade).

You will not see tort reform (voted against tort reform bill).

You will not see illegal immigration stopped, slowed, or even worried about (stood with Kennedy to support amnesty for millions of illegals).

You will not see gun control slowed, stopped, or reversed (voted for a bill requiring storage or safety locks on all handguns).

You will not see affirmative action faught against (voted for a bill setting up quotas for women and minorities).

You will be voting for a candidate that is more liberal than Arlen Specter, according to the ACU.

According to the latest Rasmussen poll, McCain has a favorability rating of only 54% -- among Republicans!  That ought to be a huge red flag for anyone supporting his nomination.  In comparison, the socially liberal Giuliani garnered a 71% favorability rating.

But hey, as long as he keeps the spending in check, that's all that matters, right?

Please...........

I think McCain is a smart enough politician to figure out to do a rapprochement with the socially conservative base.  He'll never get Pat Robertson's endorsement, but McCain can appeal to the religious base appropriately.

Hypothetically speaking, he won't be their first choice, and he shouldn't try to be.  During the run up to the primaries, we'll see him talk a bit more openly about his faith, and how his faith helped him get through Vietnam.

He'll find some low-key religious figure to talk with in a quasi-public arena where he'll say that he's often said things that he regrets, but that what really irks him about some religious figures involved in politics is that they judge too harshly and try to demand obeisance from politicians on things that don't revolve around religion or moral values.

The Weekly Standard will do a long story on the stupid things that some religious political types have said (assassinating Chavez, hurricanes because of Gay disney days, etcetera, etcetera).

It will get leaked that McCain prays every day, believes in the decency of all mankind, and hopes and prays that he can be strong enough to do the right thing and follow in the faith of his fathers and forefathers before him.

And then he'll beat St. Hillary 60-40 with neigh on 315 electoral votes.  :)

(But again, I have a preferred candidate to McCain, I just hope the other guy runs.)

"Pretty solid pro-life guy..."

Has stated that abortion in the US is "necessary" and that he will "not support a repeal of Roe v Wade."  He's pro-life in that he wants restrictions on abortion, but doesn't want to see Roe v Wade overturned.

"...completely right on fiscal policy... he essentially supports sound tax cut policy..."

Since when does believing the government has a right to keep your money make you exactly right on fiscal policy?  McCain opposes giving us our own money back, one of the hallmark principles of conservatism.  Instead, he believes the government ought to take your money and spend it on other programs he thinks are more important.  "Sound tax cut policy?"  HA!!  McCain is about as likely to pass a tax cut as Hillary is.

"he's for... limitations on lots of federal government (again, except on political speech)..."

You got that right. CFR was horrible, but what was worse was his attitude toward the Swift Boat Vets in last years' campaign.  He called on Bush to shut them up.  Of course, he never called on any of the left-leaning 527s to stop their vitrol towards Bush.  Then he wouldn't look like a maverick.  sigh

McCain has also attacked Bush over his foreign policy in a time of war.  Coming from someone like Kerry or Clinton I could understand.  But a sitting President shouldn't have to face very public beratings at the hands of one in his own party.  And especially during an election campaign.  Of course, the only thing that makes McCain and Bush in the same party is the letter after their name.  It's certainly not their policy agreements.

His weakness was attacking the religious right and they show no signs of reproachment.  He really can't win them over despite his pro-traditional marriage and pro-life views.

This was his problem in 2000, and you are right that it will be his problem again in 2008.  His fiscal policies attack George W. Bush's legacy, including his tax cuts, so that is a new hurdle McCain must cross.  Certainly some Republicans would welcome it, but attacking one's own party is a difficult path to follow to the nomination.

We'll see folks agree that the tax cuts (or some new tax agenda) need to be permanent, but they'll all rail at the growth in spending, entitlements, and pork.

Herein lies McCain's problem - he has opposed most or all of Bush's tax cuts so far, and presumably opposes making them permanent as well.  Making primary voters eat their political spinach is not a good path to follow to the nomination.

Well, he could argue for cutting programs instead. Properly, that would be eating your spinach.

Here's an old summary of McCain on abortion.

I'll admit I'm not an absolutist on abortion, it's important to me, but it's not my primary issue.  Even if we get rid of Roe v Wade, the majority of States in the nation will still have laws legalizing abortion.  I strongly support any and all efforts to drastically limit abortion (PBA, notification, waiting periods, parental consent, no inter-state crossings of children).  But I do think that in situations of rape, incest, and the life of the mother it's up to the woman.  Just my view.

Here's McCain on taxes.  You'll see that he did indeed support some of Bush's tax cuts, just not all of them.  While I would probably disagree with him on certain perspectives of the subsequent tax cuts, he was certainly showing some consistency in worrying about taxes, spending, and the economy.  If only the rest of the Republican caucus were to show some similar consistency.

I would argue that McCain's position is not that the Government should take and keep your money for whatever it wants, but that whenever the Government wants to do something, it dang well better be able to pay for it.

I despair over the size of our debt and the continued borrowing for touchy feely social policy year after year.  I recognize that it gets our guys reelected, but the cost is growing prohibitive.

As for Swift Boat Vets.  Well, as much as it irritated me to have him gripe about that, let's not overstate what he said.  As far as I can find on the net, he was asked a question he said that he urged the 'White House' not Bush personally to repudiate the ad.  And then made sure he campaigned fervently with the President.  Considering what he went through in Vietnam, I'm willing to give him something of a pass when it comes to whatever decisions he makes about speaking up on that issue.  My step-dad faught in Nam, will barely talk about it now.  He was furious with Kerry and his 'reporting for duty' schtick and would bitch about it non-stop.  But when I made a sarcastic reference about Kerry, he looked me dead in the eye and said 'You weren't there, be smart and shut your mouth.'

As for condemning the lefty 527s, did anyone at the WH or the RNC ask McCain to do anything?  Was he ever asked about the lefty 527's by the media?  Maybe McCain felt that Bush and his team were smart enough to figure out how to respond without him.

And I don't think McCain has 'attacked' Bush over the war.  He's questioned certain aspects, certain strategies, and said categorically that he dislikes Rumsfeld.  But Bush is a big boy, he can take the criticism.  McCain hasn't said we need to cut and run, he hasn't said we need to ask France and Germany to play 'mother may I' and get their help, and he hasn't followed the Hagel strategy of condemning everything.  He's laid out some legitimate complaints and offered some advice on how he'd do it.

That the media doesn't understand what McCain is saying and just reports it as 'McCain opposes Bush' doesn't make it so.  The Republican Party, and conservative movement, is bigger than just one man, even if it is the President.  It's not illegitimate to question the President or the administration.  It's not illegitimate to challenge them (or Congress) on their actions and proposals.  Debate and constructive dissent are good things.  if Bush or others can't respond to McCain's critiques, then why are they in charge?  You have to be able to respond to challenges or questions to demonstrate that you've thought through the issues and have a strategy.  Otherwise, we're doomed as a party and a movement.

McCain isn't necessarily all that and a bag of chips, but there are not too many realistic alternatives that are thinking about running that could beat St. Hillary.  If she doesn't run (yeah, like that's possible) then the whole calculus changes.  But McCain is 1000% better than St. Hillary.

Re: If he is our nominee, you will not see tax cuts or tax reform (voted against all Bush tax cuts).  

I'm not convinced he's anti-tax cut in general, only that he opposed some of the specifics of Bush tax cuts (and opposed cutting taxes without cutting spending as well). Also, I am not convinced that he would block a major tax reform insofar as it was fiscally and economically responsible.

Re: You will not see Roe v Wade overturned (publically stated he will "not support a repeal of Roe v Wade).

The president has no power to overturn Roe vs Wade.

Re: You will not see tort reform (voted against tort reform bill).

A good, and quite conservative, case can be made that this should not be a federal issue, but should be left to the states.

Re: You will not see illegal immigration stopped, slowed, or even worried about

Yes, this is McCain's major black mark in my book. But please show me that President;'s Bush's own proposals are any better.

Re: You will not see gun control slowed, stopped, or reversed (voted for a bill requiring storage or safety locks on all handguns).

A unimportant matter (the bill he voted for). Though I would agree that this ought not be a federal matter, and should be left to the states.

Re: You will not see affirmative action faught against

And this has happened under the current administration how exactly?

Re: According to the latest Rasmussen poll, McCain has a favorability rating of only 54% -- among Republicans!  That ought to be a huge red flag for anyone supporting his nomination.  In comparison, the socially liberal Giuliani garnered a 71% favorability rating.

In which case some people need to stop their knees from jerking and start thinking. the idea that McCain, despite a trip or two of the plnatation, is more liberal than Giuliani, has not been paying attention.

Re: But hey, as long as he keeps the spending in check, that's all that matters, right?

Actually, yes: as long as we have a president who is solid on national security (and I think no one faults McCain there) I would posit that getting federal spending under control is the most important task facing the next administration, and the failure to do so is decidedly the biggest failure of the current administration.

he is a one-trick pony.

Demonstrably untrue.  As others have pointed out he's been a staunch supporter of originalist judicial nominees, is more hawkish than President Bush on foreign policy, is pro-life, and is probably better than the President on supporting entitlement reform.

The only thing he's got going for him is his fiscal responsibility.

A/K/A about 80 percent of the problem in Washington right now and something that both parties are sorely lacking.

If he is our nominee, you will not see tax cuts or tax reform (voted against all Bush tax cuts).

So?  What good are temporary tax cuts when (a) a future Congress and President can simply raise the rates again (as happened in 1993) or (b) by running a deficit we are merely delaying the taxes?

You will not see Roe v Wade overturned (publically stated he will "not support a repeal of Roe v Wade).

So did President Bush yet both support judicial nominees that many suspect could do just that.

You will not see tort reform (voted against tort reform bill).

He's voted in favor of previous tort reforms bills before (e.g. "loser pays") but in the example you've referred to (and falsely tried to intimate that he's opposed to tort reform) he disagreed that the cap on non-economic damages should be set at $250,000 and believed that any sort of medical malpractice bill ought to be coupled with medical error reporting requirements.  I happen to agree with him about the latter on both policy and political grounds.  

You will not see illegal immigration stopped, slowed, or even worried about (stood with Kennedy to support amnesty for millions of illegals).

The McCain-Kennedy Bill is actually quite a bit more complicated than that and suffice to say you've grossly distorted its contents in the hopes that saying "Kennedy" and "amnesty" would cause people to quit looking at the complexity of the issue.  While this isn't my preferred bill it (a) is pretty close to what the President has said that he wants and (b) chances are we are going to get some sort of guest worker provision and (c) it couples that provision with attempts to reduce the flow of illegal aliens into the country.

You will not see gun control slowed, stopped, or reversed (voted for a bill requiring storage or safety locks on all handguns).

A bill which was defeated.  Ho-hum.

You will not see affirmative action faught against (voted for a bill setting up quotas for women and minorities).

Cite please.

You will be voting for a candidate that is more liberal than Arlen Specter, according to the ACU.

Couldn't care less about ratings by partisan/ideological/interest groups who cherry pick votes in order to tell their supporters that "so and so isn't pure enough on X."  Final votes on an issue aren't necessarily an accurate barometer on a candidate's philosophy since (a) bills rarely contain subject matter, (b) people can be for or against a particular piece of legislation for variety of reasons (some of which contradict each other), and (c) such ratings rarely capture the legislator's role in drafting the bill, working in the committee, or a number of amendments that may not have been "scored" by the "rating system."

Besides which anyone who thinks that McCain is more liberal than Spector is simply letting these groups do their thinking for them.

According to the latest Rasmussen poll, McCain has a favorability rating of only 54% -- among Republicans!  That ought to be a huge red flag for anyone supporting his nomination.  In comparison, the socially liberal Giuliani garnered a 71% favorability rating.

Is that the same poll that shows a McCain candidacy beating a Clinton candidacy 45-38 while a Giuliani candidacy beats her by only 42-40 (with about the same number of undecideds)?

I'm not someone who cares much for polling data for a hypothetical election that's still three years away but I'm curious how exactly you think a poll showing that McCain would do better than Giuliani is a "red flag" for those who are considering supporting his nomination.

But hey, as long as he keeps the spending in check, that's all that matters, right?

Well considering that spending money is probably about 80 percent of what the federal government actually does and he seems to be demonstrably better than most Congressional Republicans or Democrats and better than the Bush administration, that's a pretty big plus.  

Good metaphor for a former navy guy.

I seem to recall that when Senator McCain - who was campaigning for the reelection of the President at the time - asked the White House to denounce the SBVFT, he had also asked the Kerry campaign to do the same for the leftist 527's who were attacking the President.

McCain's support of cutting spending is noted in this diary, and it's hardly spinach to the Left since we heartily approve of his proposals, however his repeated opposition to tax cuts indicates he believes spending cuts are fiscally necessary, but not sufficient.  Being opposed to tax cuts is a really bad way to get the GOP presidential nomination.

Re: He's pro-life in that he wants restrictions on abortion, but doesn't want to see Roe v Wade overturned.

And this is pretty much where most of the country is. Also, it's extremely rare for the Supreme Court to invalidate one of its own precedents, especially one that has become the basis for a good many later decisions. I think the best anyone can hope for in this matter is that Roe vs Wade is gradually nickled and dimed to death, with more and more restrictions on abortion passing muster with the Court. Politically, that would be best for the GOP too. So McCain's abortion stance is OK with me, even if, in a perfect world, I too would like to see Roe vs Wade go the way of the dinosaurs.

Re: Since when does believing the government has a right to keep your money make you exactly right on fiscal policy?

Hmm, can we conduct this debate at something other than the sound byte level? Whether anyone likes it or not, the government will always be levying taxes on the citizens, and yes, it does have the right, by consent of the governed. That's a fact of life.Get used to it. Now, if you want tax cuts, or tax reform, then you are first going to need to cut spending, a reality that we owe to George Bush and the profligacy of the recent an current Congresses. The tax cuts of Bush first term were made possible by the fiscal restraint (accidental or otherwise) of the Clinton-Gingrich years. Until the federal government gets its budget back in order no further tax cuts will happen. So supporting a budget cutter at this point is a sound strategy for those who hope for long-term tax reform.

Re: McCain has also attacked Bush over his foreign policy in a time of war.

Please give examples. And assuming that there are some, let's remember that George W Bush is not God's first cousin. He can make mistakes, indeed he has made some whoppers. And when that is the case he ought be criticized, unless one thinks that blunders and foul-ups are good for America? So unless you can show that McCain's criticisms are in line with Cindy Sheehan's, and not along the lines of someone who wants to see the WOT prosecuted successfully and is frustrated at the errors that have hamstrung some of our efforts, then I say let McCain keep talking.

two of their respective parties most popular politicans John McCain and Hilary Clinton are treated with little respect on the blogs of the right and left.  Not being one of the true believers from either side inclines me to be more interested in either of these candidates than a purist.  Of the two, I have a great deal more respect for McCain.

I mean seriously cutting programs. The Medicare drug benefit is small in present day terms. I'm talking about slashing Medicare, cutting the waste from social security, basically defunding Education and HHS. You know, serious, adult actions. Things that, you know, I rather doubt you'd cut. Cut enough spending and there's no need to wonder how the government will be able to yell, "Hi, we're from the government, and we're here to help."

He won't, of course. The little secret to John McCain is that he's a not overly clever politician, who is a rabid pork cutter so long as it threatens not a whit of his political capital (or his own pork), and whose every action is cued to how it plays on the evening news and in the mirror (same thing, really).

Re: The Medicare drug benefit is small in present day terms.

There may be little money going to it right now this minute, but if what we're hearing is even remotely true then it's slated to become the Godzilla That Eats The Budget in the not very distant future. Surely the best time to defeat a spending colossus is before it takes off and develops an inertia that God Almighty would have trouble stopping on a good day.

The drug benefit is small now; there's no real political price to pay for killing it now (to McCain, anyway), and it has little real impact on the current budget.

Surely the best time to defeat a spending colossus is before it takes off and develops an inertia that God Almighty would have trouble stopping on a good day.

Blasphemy aside, I take no issue with this. I simply mean that McCain is grandstanding and taking on something that means very little now, instead of going after real cuts that might skin someone's knees and make them cry.

There's a whole bunch of Republicans who apparently got their knees skinned, because (as pointed out below) they're crying pretty loudly about something that "means very little now."

They aren't Saint John McCain. They have to appear to care about old people. Heck, they probably do.

I don't, or at least, I don't care if that means tossing even more lucre their way. McCain, were he actually serious, would actually look at bleeding some of the bloat.

He's not, so he won't. He's a devout Goldwaterite, which means that principle is great, but ego is better.

pure and simple.

I don't trust McCain any further than I could throw him.

Positioning for '08, IMHO.

Other R's aren't taking this position because, practically speaking, "[p]eople don't want it. They say they do, but when you threaten to give it to them, they vote for the Other Guys."  Danger is dead-on.

we should get rid of the Department of Education. Where's Newt Gingrich when we need him? (Oh yeah-- off smoozing with Hillary, oh well.)

As far as the existing Medicare program goes the only way that program can ever be truly reformed (as opposed to rearranging the deck chairs) is as part of a comprehensive health care reform. So far that's not in the cards.

I do however think there's a political price to be paid in killing off the Medicare Drug program. the Democrats demagogued this issue for several years. Does anyone think they wouldn't rush to do so next year and again in 2008 if the GOP Congress and the President junked it tomorrow?

Plus  McCain may have some sort of ace in the hole for supporting Bush so steadfastly last year.

I think McCain would do at least as well as 60-40 against St. Hillary, but I don't think she will get the nomination.  Remember that Joementum led the pack of Dems until the fall of '03 on name recognition alone?  Those "electability" primary Dem voters will realize that Hillary will whip the Right into a frenzy without exciting any real passion on the Left because of her centrist views.

I see Clark, Kerry, or Warner getting the nod, in that order.  Any of them would give McCain a better run.

but I also think we need every Republican showing some support for fiscal discipline.    If we don't do it, the Democrats will point to the "good ole' days of fiscal responsibility under Bill Clinton".   They'll credit Clinton for the discipline and restraint that the Republican Congress had in the late '90's.

I generally agree, but he also just suggested on Hardball that we need to look into cutting parts of the "entitlement" programs.  Not a politcally expedient thing to say.  Big surprise form Johnny Mac.

Unless he means something other than the Medicare Drug Boondoggle, I'm going to assume he's grandstanding.

...I have to say I really respect him for advocating dumping the abominable prescription drug package.

That takes b*lls.

I think there are others that could beat McCain, but not any of the seemingly obvious candidates will be able to pull it off.  (Brownback, Allen, Frist, etc. haven't run tough races, don't know how to speak to a larger audience than their core believers, and certainly don't get friendly media attention.  We need a solid governor or two to get into the game, Jeb or Sanford are my favorites.)

As to St. Hillary, I'll donate $100 to charity if she runs for the nomination and doesn't get it.  Look at her opponents.

Kerry?  seriously?  No one on the dem side is going to make that mistake again.

Clark?  He's a useful idiot for the dems on military issues, but he's way out of his league on anything resembling domestic issues.  Plus he's a conspiracy theorist moonbat, and outside of the kossites he won't play well in Ottumwa.

Richardson?  An fat, liberal hispanic who thought security at our nuclear laboratories was optional?    He'll get buried by negative stories from 'former Senate aides.'  Remember when Robert Byrd (D-Klan) condemned Richardson and told him he would never have the support of the U.S. Senate ever again?

Warner?  Outside of raising taxes, what has he really done?  There's no policy achievement that he can truthfully point to that's had any real impact.  He raised taxes and didn't screw up an easy to govern state.  Quite the slogan.

Vilsack?  He'd probably not even win the Iowa caucus.  He's like Kerry without the shining personality.  His wife would be a better candidate.

I don't like the idea of facing St. Hillary, but we have to assume that she and her 'husband' have this all plotted out very carefully so that they can return to power.  She'll destroy anyone that runs against her, making Willie Horton ads seem tame.

If we don't figure that out and nominate the right person to defeat her, we might as well not even bother with the primaries on our side.

I'm an independent and a fiscal conservative and generally like what I hear from McCain.  Thus I can't understand the contempt and dislike that so many Republicans have for him (not being plugged in to all that.)

What exactly did McCain do to the religious right to earn their hatred and is the religious right so in control of the GOP that they can deny McCain the nomination?

Who is the darling of the religious right for 2008?

Here are the responses to my charges, and my answers to them.  Please note that I am not trying to compare McCain to Bush, as some apparently think I was doing... I am disappointed in many of Bush's policies as well.  But I just want to ensure that we know what we're getting if (when?) McCain gets the GOP nod in '08.

#1. Abortion

Abortion isn't my #1 issue; even if we overturned Roe v Wade states would legalize abortion anyways; it would be better to see Roe nickle and dimed to death; the president doesn't have the power to overturn Roe; President Bush said the same things.

Couple of points.  First, the president has the power to overturn Roe v Wade by electing Supreme Court justices that share his viewpoint on the matter.  Secondly, President Bush has said that he would like to see Roe v Wade overturned, but he doesn't think the atmosphere in the country is right for that right now - 180 degrees from McCain's statement of not supporting a repeal of Roe.  Court nominations has become a hallmark conservative issue over the past few years, and it is clear that McCain will not serve conservative's best interest with his nominations. I also agree, for what it's worth, that we ought to nickel and dime Roe to death. But for that to happen, we've got to get better justices on the Supreme Court to keep them from striking down state-passed and federally-passed laws.  If I hear a clear, direct statement from McCain saying he will do this, I will let this issue go.

#2: Taxes.

McCain did support some of Bush's tax cuts; he just wanted fiscal responsibility to go along with the tax cuts; we need to cut spending in order to have tax cuts; he just opposed some specifics in the Bush tax cuts; tax cuts are only temporary anyways.

McCain voted against every single one of the Bush tax cuts.  Here's a CNN article showing he voted against the 2001 cuts:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/02/mccain.daschle.02/

He joined Chaffee as the only 2 Republicans to vote against the bill.  And then he subsequently voted against every other tax cut bill passed by Congress.  I can understand wanting fiscal responsibility, but c'mon.  After Clinton passed what could be considered the largest middle class tax increase in American history, depending on how you do the numbers, it was high time someone cut the taxes in this country back to a somewhat reasonable level. And since the tax cuts, tax revenue has increased, lowering the deficit by a larger margin than originally estimated.  Kinda like when Reagan's tax cuts literally tripled tax revenue coming into Washington.  I agree we need to cut spending in Washington. Without a doubt. However, that is no reason to vote against the 2001 tax cuts, which were at the time fiscally responsible as we were facing a surplus.  Give the money back to the people when you have too much.  McCain thinks you owe it to the government so they can spend it on other programs.

And I hope that you're not suggesting that the tax cuts should have never been passed since they're temporary right now. Congress will make them permanent in the next couple of years, and even if they don't for some reason, the boost to the economy for these four years was worth it, wouldn't you agree?

#3: Tort Reform

Tort reform shouldn't be a federal issue anyways; he's voted in favor of some tort reform and against some.

Here in Wyoming, we recently tried to pass constitutional amendments C and D for medical liability reform.  One of them passed, one of them didn't, but it highlighted the difficulty that states have of passing their own tort reform bills.  It requires, as McCain himself pointed out, a constitutional amendment in many cases.  The federal government can take charge of the situation and lower health care costs for everyone in the country much easier. And for the bill in question, McCain voted against the tort reform bill because he didn't think the $250k cap for non-economic damages was high enough! Not high enough???  Please.  Personally, I don't see why anyone should be allowed any monetary award for "pain and suffering" or "emotional stress" or any of that mumbo-jumbo. Economic damages could still be paid out, but McCain thought people were entitled to more than 250k for emotional stress.  That's not desiring reform at any significant level.

#4: Immigration Reform

Bush's plan is no better; the McCain/Kennedy supported bill is more complex than you think and basically no different than Bush's plan.

I don't want a guest worker provision. I don't want to reward illegal aliens in this country.  I want to support legal immigration and crack down on illegal immigration.  This is a matter of national security now -- I didn't used to care about this issue much at all, but now it is one of the most important issues we need to deal with.  I don't like Bush's plan, and have said that ever since it came out, so McCain's isn't any better.  In fact, it's a little worse.

#5: Gun Control

The bill that McCain voted for was defeated; the bill was unimportant.

Okay, then maybe you'd be more inclined to know that in 2004 McCain has received a grade of a C from the NRA and a grade of an F- from Gun Owners of America.

Maybe it would strike you as important that he cosponsored, with Joe Lieberman, a bill that would allow the federal government the power to prohibit any gun show, and the authority to register every person who attended a gun show.

Perhaps I didn't put up the best example to show McCain was less than gun-friendly, but suffice it to say his history shows he is hardly pro-second amendment.  Watching him campaign in some states will be like watching Kerry go on his duck hunt in Ohio.

#6: Affirmative Action

Cite the bill in which McCain supported quotas; Bush doesn't fight against affirmative action either.

Once again, I am not arguing Bush vs. McCain.  However, the current administration has taken a stance against affirmative action, albeit a fairly toothless one (i.e. the Michigan college case).

As to McCain's views toward affirmative action, I will withdraw this criticism of him. The bill I mentioned earlier was S1173, which would, in part, eliminate the affirmative action based Disadvantaged Business Enterprise.  The DBE set up quotas in percentage form for affirmative action, and McCain voted to keep the program in place.  While this is disconcerting, it has come to my attention through further research that there may have been other reasons McCain opposed the bill, and indeed McCain even lists himself, on his website, several reasons.  So again, I withdraw the criticism of McCain on affirmative action. It was irresponsible of me to base my assumption on one piece of legislation I had not fully researched.

Hope that helps clear things up a bit...

was say some rude things about Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberston in the SC Y2K primary. And ironically, after their blame-America-first commentary on 9-11 those two preachers have pretty much been disowned by everyone, including the President. In effect, McCain was rather prophetic, and why that should be held against him is rather odd.

He called Bush a "Robertson Republican" among other things.  And he does have a tendency to find the nearest camera every time he disagrees with the Republican platform.  For example, count the times he has been in front of a camera arguing for global warming reform or McCain-Feingold vs. the times he has been on TV arguing against Roe or abortion.  

"the Republican platform" on global warming?

Here's the platform (.pdf)  If you want to look it up, please let us know.  I'm unsure of what the exact position is.

There is this:

Nuclear power provides America with affordable, emissions-free energy. We believe nuclear power can help reduce our dependence on foreign energy and play an invaluable role in addressing global climate change. President Bush supports construction of new nuclear power plants through the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, and continues to

move forward on creating an environmentally sound nuclear waste repository.

.

.

.

Republicans support developing new technologies for more efficient generation and use of power. New technologies will allow us to create new job-producing industries and save jobs in industries that have long been staples of America's economy. For instance, working with Congressional Republicans, the President has already committed

$2 billion over 10 years for clean coal research and development - which helps keep America's coal industry strong and reduces the emissions associated with coal use. As part of that commitment, we support FutureGen, an international, public-private initiative to build the world's first integrated sequestration and hydrogen research power plant that would burn coal more cleanly. President Bush's Clear Skies Initiative would create a $50 billion private market to deploy these clean coal technologies.

and this

Global Climate Change

Republicans are committed to meeting the challenge of long-term global climate change by relying on markets and new technologies to improve energy efficiency. These efforts will help reduce emissions over time while allowing the economy to grow. Our President and our Party strongly oppose the Kyoto Protocol and similar mandatory carbon emissions controls that harm economic growth and destroy American jobs.

.

.

.

Clear Skies

We support President Bush's Clear Skies proposal, the most aggressive Presidential initiative in history to reduce power plant emissions. Clear Skies, through a proven cap-and-trade system, will reduce by 70 percent emissions of sulfur dioxide,

nitrogen oxides, and mercury. The market-based policies in Clear Skies, along with a 90 percent cut in pollution from diesel vehicles, will help states meet new, more stringent standards to protect public health. The President's plan also provides regulatory certainty, enabling power plants to install state-of-the-art pollution control technologies. These steps will lead to significant environmental improvements while ensuring a reliable, affordable electricity supply and keeping America's coal industry strong.

Adam C, you said that McCain doesn't toe the party line on global warming.

Faster than I could BillCosby above cut and pasted the GOP platform as it relates to global climate change.

What has McCain said or done to offend the GOP on this issue?

And since the tax cuts, tax revenue has increased, lowering the deficit by a larger margin than originally estimated.  Kinda like when Reagan's tax cuts literally tripled tax revenue coming into Washington.

Refer to this and the CBO tables linked therefrom to see why what you said isn't really the case.

but please correct me if I am wrong.

something, or wasn't the Kyoto treaty rejected by the Senate 99-0? Unless McCain was the lone abstention, it would seem he voted against it.

He cosponsored a bill with Lieberman that would have imposed similar, but less aggressive, restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions.

a republican primary.

conservative christians make up too large a percentage of the republican base. mccain referred to christian leaders as the forces of evil. mccain takes every opportunity to embarass the gop leadership. he calls kerry a swell guy and was kerry's first choice for veep. he supports kyoto or kyoto-lite. he's pro gun control, hates tax cuts, opposes a federal marriage ammendment, etc.

and even if he were the son of god, mccain-feingold is enough of a reason to make a real conservative campaign for hillary.

thanks to mccain, it is now illegal in the united states to critcize an incumbent within sixty days of an election. thanks to mccain, redstate.org and talk radio will be shut down sixty days before the 2006 and 2008 elections.

mccain is pure evil and i and everyone i know will go door-to-door asking people to vote for the hildebeast if our choice is between her and that traitor.

Re: mccain will never win a republican primary.

Tell that to the voters in New Hampshire and Michigan

if he won a state that allowed only Republicans to vote in its primary.  He might do better in SC next time around with both SEN Graham and GOV Sanford as good pals in the McCain camp.  A NH win followed by a SC win (in the South no less) would give him legitimate momentum.  But he's still quite a ways away from winning over those who felt insulted by him in 2000.

Who was insulted by McCain in 2000?

Cheers -

I don't always agree with McCain, but the good part with him is that he's willing to come out and speak his mind.

The bad part is that he's more interested in having a press release than in getting things done.

who are upset at the way the current administration and congress has gone in regards to the finances.  The administration and those R congressional figures got their votes from R's like me because they were better than the alternative, not because they were particularly attractive on their own...

Politics today is choosing the lesser of two evils, not choosing the greater of two goods, and that is very troubling to me... - or at least to me it is the lesser of two evils... I'm perhaps more independent minded than many R's - especially seeing as I'm not a registered R, even though I consider myself one unofficially - in that I'd be willing to vote for a non Republican if I agreed with them more than I agreed with a R...

here

You know, in all sincerity, and with no intention to make a baiting comment or to stir up the "soup", as it were -- every time I hear something from McCain, I like him more and more.  

If he runs in '08, I may cast my first Republican Presidential vote.

on free speech and his bizarreness in other areas, if he comes out for rational immigration reform, and conservative values in general, while not being under the thumb of religous extremists, then we will see Hillary vs. McCain 2008 and McCain will beat her like a drum.

And then the McCain appointees to the FEC will beat on this site, and others who wish to exercise free speech, like a drum.

There is the title of my post.

He has issues with freedom of expression that I find deeply troubling. However, don't kid yourself: Hillary would impose a PC based censorship even more restrictive.

Here's what Senator McCain also said from the article you provided:

"I am a pro-life, pro-family fiscal conservative and advocate of a strong defense, and yet, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and a few Washington leaders of the pro-life movement call me an unacceptable presidential candidate," McCain said in speech to some 1,500 people at Cox High School in Virginia Beach.

"They distort my pro-life positions and smear the reputations of my supporters because I don't pander to them, I don't ascribe to their failed philosophy that money is our message."

Robertson sponsored automated phone calls to voters prior to the Michigan Republican primary last week criticizing McCain's record on abortion, and calling key campaign aide Warren Rudman a "bigot" for criticizing Christian conservatives.

McCain was careful to focus the brunt of his sharp message on Robertson and Falwell -- founder of the Virginia-based Moral Majority -- along with other "self-appointed leaders" he said had "lost confidence in the Republican Party."

"Let me be clear: Evangelical leaders our changing America for the better," McCain said, citing the efforts of Chuck Colson, a former Nixon aide who runs a Christian outreach program for prison inmates. He also paid homage to Dr. James Dobson, the founder of the Washington, D.C.-based Christian group, Focus on the Family.

Looking at his remarks in context it seems clear that:

(a) McCain's remarks were directed specifically at Falwell and Robertson who

(b) Were using some disgusting campaign tactics rather than

(c) Social conservatives in general particularly since he

(d) Went out of his way to praise evangelicals in general and recognized the good works of Colson and Dobson.

Bottom line: there is no way a reasonable person could look at these remarks and see them as an attack on the "religious right" when they were clearly an attack on two disgusting individuals, both of whom showed after 9/11 that neither is deserving of conservative support.

McCain was just ahead of curve in publicly denouncing them.

That post is pure vintage moby complete with Known Facts attacking a Republican elected official and referring to him as a "traitor" or "pure evil" while asking people to vote for a Democratic candidate instead.  The gratuitous inclusion of "hildebeast" to give the illusion that he's "one of us" was also a nice touch.

I'm rendering the oil right now.

The little secret to John McCain is that he's a [not overly clever] politician, who is a rabid pork cutter so long as it threatens not a whit of his political capital (or his own pork), and whose every action is cued to how it plays on the evening news and in the mirror (same thing, really).

This applies only to McCain? Sounds like a pretty fair description of homo politicus.

I have a generally low opinion of the bunch. I just think that Saint John is nothing special, his repeated invocations to the mirror, and Amens! from the assorted media and Dems (but I repeat myself) notwithstanding.

Plays well among the Club for Growth and few others.  I can imagine the AARP ads running night after night on Lifetime, History Channel, and elsewhere.

Not to mention the nightly news bradcasts, the editorials from the fading but still potent legacy media.

Trying to repeal the drug benefit is like throwing a hanging curve ball to A-Rod.  It's a big mistake that will hurt.

The better option is to restructure the thing - and to achieve siugnificant savings via the restructuring... say, add means-testing for that and other things.

He's gotten huge amounts of flak from the left just for losing to Bush.  People seem to have forgotten that he actually did better than Clinton in '92 or '96, both in terms of total votes and percentage of the popular vote.  He just lost to a better GOP GOTV operation.

I suspect he may make a comeback.  Remember he was declared all but dead in the water until Iowans actually voted last year.  Kerry's support may be shallow, but it's very broad.

I agree with you about Richardson and Vilsack.  Bayh's too conservative and Edwards is too much of a lightweight.  The anti-Hillary will be Clark or Kerry.  Maybe Warner, I don't know enough about him yet.