That will be the title of my piece on Monday. I'll be emphasizing the very favorable view of John McCain expressed by my favorite publication, The (London) Economist, which is very good at capturing the reasons why certain political figures -- McCain in this case -- catch on so well with large segments of the public. On the right, by the way, you see a picture of Gov. Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska, one of my favorite people on the planet. John McCain would do very well to consider her for the vice-presidency. The Monday column will be up by noon, ET.
Can't wait for Super Tuesday. How about you? Also, thanks to the visitor from Vienna, Austria, who stayed a long time -- and to Cole from Mobile, Alabama, a great supporter of John McCain. Note: The piece analyzing The Economist's (positive) views on McCain will come up later today. For now, I'd like to reprint the important piece in The Wall Street Journal on McCain and the judiciary.
Wall Street Journal: McCain And The Supreme Court
By Steven G. Calabresi and John O. McGinnis
The conservative movement has made enormous gains over the past three decades in restoring constitutional government. The Roberts Supreme Court shows every sign of building on these gains.
Yet the gulf between Democratic and Republican approaches to constitutional law and the role of the federal courts is greater than at any time since the New Deal. With a Democratic Senate, Democratic presidents would be able to confirm adherents of the theory of the "Living Constitution" -- in essence empowering judges to update the Constitution to advance their own conception of a better world. This would threaten the jurisprudential gains of the past three decades, and provide new impetus to judicial activism of a kind not seen since the 1960s.
We believe that the nomination of John McCain is the best option to preserve the ongoing restoration of constitutional government. He is by far the most electable Republican candidate remaining in the race, and based on his record is as likely to appoint judges committed to constitutionalism as Mitt Romney, a candidate for whom we also have great respect.
We make no apology for suggesting that electability must be a prime consideration. The expected value of any presidential candidate for the future of the American judiciary must be discounted by the probability that the candidate will not prevail in the election. For other kinds of issues, it may be argued that it is better to lose with the perfect candidate than to win with an imperfect one. The party lives to fight another day and can reverse the bad policies of an intervening presidency.
The judiciary is different. On Jan. 20, 2009, six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70. Most of them could be replaced by the next president, particularly if he or she is re-elected. Given the prospect of accelerating gains in modern medical technology, some of the new justices may serve for half a century. Even if a more perfect candidate were somehow elected in 2012, he would not be able to undo the damage, especially to the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, for judicial conservatives electability must be a paramount consideration. By all accounts, Mr. McCain is more electable than Mr. Romney. He runs ahead or even with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the national polls, and actually leads the Democratic candidates in key swing states like Wisconsin. Mr. Romney trails well behind both Democratic candidates by double digits. The fundamental dynamic of this race points in Mr. McCain's way as well. He appeals to independents, while Mr. Romney's support is largely confined to Republicans.
With many more Republican senators up for re-election than Democrats, the nomination of Mr. Romney could easily lead to a Goldwater-like debacle, in which the GOP loses not only the White House but also its ability in practice to filibuster in the Senate. Thus, even if we believed that Mr. Romney's judicial appointments were likely to be better than Mr. McCain's -- and we are not persuaded of that -- we would find ourselves hard-pressed to support his candidacy, given that he is so much less likely to make any appointments at all.
In fact, there is no reason to believe that Mr. McCain will not make excellent appointments to the court. On judicial nominations, he has voted soundly in the past from Robert Bork in 1987 to Samuel Alito in 2006. His pro-life record also provides a surety that he will not appoint judicial activists.
We recognize that there are two plausible sources of disquiet. Mr. McCain is perhaps the foremost champion of campaign-finance regulation, regulation that is hard to square with the First Amendment. Still, a President McCain would inevitably have a broader focus. Securing the party's base of judicial conservatives is a necessary formula for governance, as President Bush himself showed when he swiftly dropped the ill-conceived nomination of Harriet Miers.
Perhaps more important, because of the success of constitutionalist jurisprudence, a McCain administration would be enveloped by conservative thinking in this area. The strand of jurisprudential thought that produced Sen. Warren Rudman and Justice David Souter is no longer vibrant in the Republican Party.
Others are concerned that Mr. McCain was a member of the "Gang of 14," opposing the attempt to end filibusters of judicial nominations. We believe that Mr. McCain's views about the institutional dynamics of the Senate are a poor guide to his performance as president. In any event, the agreement of the Gang of 14 had its costs, but it played an important role in ensuring that Samuel Alito faced no Senate filibuster. It also led to the confirmation of Priscilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown and Bill Pryor, three of President George W. Bush's best judicial appointees to the lower federal courts.
Conservative complaints about Mr. McCain's role as a member of the Gang of 14 seem to encapsulate all that is wrong in general with conservative carping over his candidacy. It makes the perfect the enemy of the very good results that have been achieved, thanks in no small part to Mr. McCain, and to the very likely prospect of further good results that might come from his election as president.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Maloney, McCain: Immigration & Demagoguery
CONGRATULATIONS TO WHAT HOWARD COSSELL USED TO CALL "THE NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS."
Hi everyone. Welcome to today's visitors from Hobbs, NM, Omaha, Concord and Camirillo, CA, Knoxville, Ewa Beach, HI, Venetie, AK, Wasilla, AK (hi Sarah!), Juneau, AK, Washington, DC, Rome, Italy, Chesham, UK, Southfield, MI, Rome, GA, Gaithersburg, MD, Pittsburgh, PA, Winston Salem, NC, and Beggs, OK.
Please visit the John McCain for POTUS site at: http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=240445
LATER TONIGHT (SUNDAY), I'LL PUT UP MONDAY'S COLUMN, WHICH WILL DEAL WITH THE (LONDON) ECONOMIST MAGAZINE'S VERY POSITIVE WORDS ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN.
Also, read the terrific opinion piece by Jack Kelly on "McCain is NOT the Enemy." You can find it by going to: http://post-gazette.com/forum. If you have a blog, please recommend this fine essay to your visitors.
I wrote the following to a radio friend (J.) who asked me about the Bill Russell campaign and expressed the view that John McCain’s immigration approach amounted to supporting “criminal invaders” of the U.S. My problem is that a term like “criminal invaders” is talk-show demagoguery. It’s just plain evil. It doesn’t distinguish an impoverished Guatemalan mother sneaking across the border from, say, Muhammed Atta. If I lose J. as a friend, well, maybe that was a friend I don’t need. Here’s what I said:
I support Bill (and gave him 400 bucks) but he appointed a new campaign manager and the strategy seems to be to wait for a miracle. Bill Russell is a good guy and maybe a great guy, but he doesn't seem to want to wage the hand-to-hand combat necessary to make real inroads into Murtha's big lead. Sad to say, but I'm trying to tell the truth a lot these days.
In politics, J., half a loaf is the equivalent of a five-tiered wedding cake. There are no perfect candidates, and those who claim to be send up a "hold-onto-your-wallet" signal.
There are also some fine "conservative" (sorta/maybe/coulda/woulda) candidates, like Duncan Hunter and Jim Gilmore (now a trivia question) who attract more flies than voters. Hunter was a good man with status in the House and a presence in Moneyland, USA. He raised $1.8 million and never got up to 1% in the national polls. Murtha has probably raised more money by now.
And then we had the "ideal" conservative, Fred Thompson, the laziest man in the history of American politics. Besides having a stomach problem and belching four times per minute, he finished behind Ron Paul in every state except South Carolina (where Fred finished a weak third).
Is immigration really the issue that most staunch conservatives believe it is? Gee, how did Tom Tancredo (who also came out against legal immigration) do? How did Duncan Hunter do? How does immigration rate (about sixth or seventh) on the issues people care about?
Immigration -- "criminal invaders" notwithstanding -- is a non-issue, J. Ask Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, one of whom will be the next President, "resolve the issue?" Check out the Dem debate, and you'll find exactly what their commitment to border security -- nonexistent -- is.
A lot talk show hosts (not referring to you of course) got rich on immigrant-bashing, but it is not an issue that is going to play any significant role in elections. Some of the Republicans who were the most anti- lost badly, including Hayworth in AZ and Santorum in PA. People in PA (outside Hazleton) don't care about immigration. They care more about getting Hispanic votes, which McCain, Clinton, and (to a lesser degree) Obama did in FL.
Ann Coulter has come out and endorsed Hillary, and, perhaps for the first time in her life, she's being honest. (Now that I say that, about her honesty, I don't believe it). She's a political whore who makes money by saying offensive things about other people. The big-time talk show people are squealing now because it's become clear that they are irrelevant -- they're profoundly stupid, relentlessly glib individuals.
I hope they follow Ann's lead and endorse Hillary. I sure as hell don't want them on my side.
Hi everyone. Welcome to today's visitors from Hobbs, NM, Omaha, Concord and Camirillo, CA, Knoxville, Ewa Beach, HI, Venetie, AK, Wasilla, AK (hi Sarah!), Juneau, AK, Washington, DC, Rome, Italy, Chesham, UK, Southfield, MI, Rome, GA, Gaithersburg, MD, Pittsburgh, PA, Winston Salem, NC, and Beggs, OK.
Please visit the John McCain for POTUS site at: http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=240445
LATER TONIGHT (SUNDAY), I'LL PUT UP MONDAY'S COLUMN, WHICH WILL DEAL WITH THE (LONDON) ECONOMIST MAGAZINE'S VERY POSITIVE WORDS ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN.
Also, read the terrific opinion piece by Jack Kelly on "McCain is NOT the Enemy." You can find it by going to: http://post-gazette.com/forum. If you have a blog, please recommend this fine essay to your visitors.
I wrote the following to a radio friend (J.) who asked me about the Bill Russell campaign and expressed the view that John McCain’s immigration approach amounted to supporting “criminal invaders” of the U.S. My problem is that a term like “criminal invaders” is talk-show demagoguery. It’s just plain evil. It doesn’t distinguish an impoverished Guatemalan mother sneaking across the border from, say, Muhammed Atta. If I lose J. as a friend, well, maybe that was a friend I don’t need. Here’s what I said:
I support Bill (and gave him 400 bucks) but he appointed a new campaign manager and the strategy seems to be to wait for a miracle. Bill Russell is a good guy and maybe a great guy, but he doesn't seem to want to wage the hand-to-hand combat necessary to make real inroads into Murtha's big lead. Sad to say, but I'm trying to tell the truth a lot these days.
In politics, J., half a loaf is the equivalent of a five-tiered wedding cake. There are no perfect candidates, and those who claim to be send up a "hold-onto-your-wallet" signal.
There are also some fine "conservative" (sorta/maybe/coulda/woulda) candidates, like Duncan Hunter and Jim Gilmore (now a trivia question) who attract more flies than voters. Hunter was a good man with status in the House and a presence in Moneyland, USA. He raised $1.8 million and never got up to 1% in the national polls. Murtha has probably raised more money by now.
And then we had the "ideal" conservative, Fred Thompson, the laziest man in the history of American politics. Besides having a stomach problem and belching four times per minute, he finished behind Ron Paul in every state except South Carolina (where Fred finished a weak third).
Is immigration really the issue that most staunch conservatives believe it is? Gee, how did Tom Tancredo (who also came out against legal immigration) do? How did Duncan Hunter do? How does immigration rate (about sixth or seventh) on the issues people care about?
Immigration -- "criminal invaders" notwithstanding -- is a non-issue, J. Ask Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, one of whom will be the next President, "resolve the issue?" Check out the Dem debate, and you'll find exactly what their commitment to border security -- nonexistent -- is.
A lot talk show hosts (not referring to you of course) got rich on immigrant-bashing, but it is not an issue that is going to play any significant role in elections. Some of the Republicans who were the most anti- lost badly, including Hayworth in AZ and Santorum in PA. People in PA (outside Hazleton) don't care about immigration. They care more about getting Hispanic votes, which McCain, Clinton, and (to a lesser degree) Obama did in FL.
Ann Coulter has come out and endorsed Hillary, and, perhaps for the first time in her life, she's being honest. (Now that I say that, about her honesty, I don't believe it). She's a political whore who makes money by saying offensive things about other people. The big-time talk show people are squealing now because it's become clear that they are irrelevant -- they're profoundly stupid, relentlessly glib individuals.
I hope they follow Ann's lead and endorse Hillary. I sure as hell don't want them on my side.
New McCain Forum For You!
New McCain Forum For You!
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/240445.html
Please copy the above link and visit the new McCain Forum. It allows you to leave comments, which I hope you will, and contains links to all relevant sites for McCain volunteers (contributions, Bloggers for McCain, and the like). You can find the direct link at the top of my blogroll to the right. Thanks so much for your help.
I have written several columns -- and added several guest columns -- about McCain, which you can find at http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com.
A tremendous amount is going to happen in the nominating process over the next four days. I believe on Wednesday of next week in Boston, Massachusetts, Mitt Romney will end his campaign -- and probably will endorse John McCain. As for Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, I predict that they will retreat from public life and perhaps join, respectively, a monastery and a nunnery.
Like all national elections, this one will be close -- and ferociously contested. The winning element could be the bloggers, who will play an unprecedented role in this campaign. God bless you all.
THE FOLLOWING IS FROM GREG ALTERTON AT RUDY SUPPORTERS FOR MCCAIN:
From Greg at Rudy Supporters for McCain:
Hugh Hewitt has posted a blog thought here -- http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog -- in which he argues:
The Romney campaign's February 5th math is simple: move all the voters from the Huckabee pile onto theirs and claim a majority of conservatives.
Won't happen. Huck's supporters support him (largely) for one reason: he's an evangelical Christian. These folks are not going to jump to a Mormon candidate...Sorry, his religion is an issue with many.
The other thing that was a revelation was the news from Lousiana where the block of pro-life so-cons going to the state convention to select delegates are committed to McCain. Every one of them. This tells me that Romney stands no chance of simply getting "all" of Huck's supporters.
And wasn't it not too long ago that Hewitt and company were saying that Huck wasn't a conservative at all? So, how can his supporters coming over to Romney make up a "conservative majority."
This kind of blindness based on an emotional investment in Romney is what passes for political analysis from Hugh Hewitt these days. He should never have gotten in bed with Romney to the extent that he has. He's painted himself into a corner, and now that Romney is proving NOT to be the great conservative savior (give GOP voters credit for seeing through Romney), Hewitt sees no way out.
A friend in Oregon responded to the above:
I stopped reading or listening to Hewitt sometime last summer, having watched him self-destruct by utterly (and eagerly) destroying his credibility and integrity. Some of his regular readers are genuinely certifiable. I just could not see the point in wasting further time or energy on them.
Instead, I sent a large donation to McCain. At the time, his campaign was universally derided as moribund, at best. I thought it likely that my donation would accomplish nothing of worth--with the notable exception of satisfying my conscience that I had at least tried to do something for my country.
As things changed for the positive, I would return to Hewitt's site only when I needed a good laugh. His post after Romney's religion speech was a particular screamer.
Hewitt claims he will support the GOP nominee, but how can he?
Steve is right: Hewitt has painted himself into the deepest, darkest corner imaginable from which there is no escape.
Check his site on Wednesday morning. His post should be the most hilarious one yet.
Bruce
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/240445.html
Please copy the above link and visit the new McCain Forum. It allows you to leave comments, which I hope you will, and contains links to all relevant sites for McCain volunteers (contributions, Bloggers for McCain, and the like). You can find the direct link at the top of my blogroll to the right. Thanks so much for your help.
I have written several columns -- and added several guest columns -- about McCain, which you can find at http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com.
A tremendous amount is going to happen in the nominating process over the next four days. I believe on Wednesday of next week in Boston, Massachusetts, Mitt Romney will end his campaign -- and probably will endorse John McCain. As for Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, I predict that they will retreat from public life and perhaps join, respectively, a monastery and a nunnery.
Like all national elections, this one will be close -- and ferociously contested. The winning element could be the bloggers, who will play an unprecedented role in this campaign. God bless you all.
THE FOLLOWING IS FROM GREG ALTERTON AT RUDY SUPPORTERS FOR MCCAIN:
From Greg at Rudy Supporters for McCain:
Hugh Hewitt has posted a blog thought here -- http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog -- in which he argues:
The Romney campaign's February 5th math is simple: move all the voters from the Huckabee pile onto theirs and claim a majority of conservatives.
Won't happen. Huck's supporters support him (largely) for one reason: he's an evangelical Christian. These folks are not going to jump to a Mormon candidate...Sorry, his religion is an issue with many.
The other thing that was a revelation was the news from Lousiana where the block of pro-life so-cons going to the state convention to select delegates are committed to McCain. Every one of them. This tells me that Romney stands no chance of simply getting "all" of Huck's supporters.
And wasn't it not too long ago that Hewitt and company were saying that Huck wasn't a conservative at all? So, how can his supporters coming over to Romney make up a "conservative majority."
This kind of blindness based on an emotional investment in Romney is what passes for political analysis from Hugh Hewitt these days. He should never have gotten in bed with Romney to the extent that he has. He's painted himself into a corner, and now that Romney is proving NOT to be the great conservative savior (give GOP voters credit for seeing through Romney), Hewitt sees no way out.
A friend in Oregon responded to the above:
I stopped reading or listening to Hewitt sometime last summer, having watched him self-destruct by utterly (and eagerly) destroying his credibility and integrity. Some of his regular readers are genuinely certifiable. I just could not see the point in wasting further time or energy on them.
Instead, I sent a large donation to McCain. At the time, his campaign was universally derided as moribund, at best. I thought it likely that my donation would accomplish nothing of worth--with the notable exception of satisfying my conscience that I had at least tried to do something for my country.
As things changed for the positive, I would return to Hewitt's site only when I needed a good laugh. His post after Romney's religion speech was a particular screamer.
Hewitt claims he will support the GOP nominee, but how can he?
Steve is right: Hewitt has painted himself into the deepest, darkest corner imaginable from which there is no escape.
Check his site on Wednesday morning. His post should be the most hilarious one yet.
Bruce
A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON MCCAIN
NOTE: ANOTHER COLUMN TODAY IS BELOW THIS ONE. COMMENTS WELCOME.
A Different Perspective
Victor Davis Hanson
From National Review Online
Three unexpected developments have given Republicans a shot this year at winning once thought impossible, given the normal desire of the electorate for a fresh party after eight years, and worries about Iraq and the economy. All can change, but for now they have a real shot.
The first, of course, is the radical turnabout in Iraq. Had we been seeing over 100 dead a month, the loss of Baghdad, and a failure of the surge, McCain would be finished and his Republican rivals would have carved out a third position between Bush and the Democrats that would have been still rejected by the voters.
Second, no one anticipated the surge of Obama, and the Clintons’ overt and clumsy efforts at personal destruction that turned off even liberals, a development that explains why a McCain in theory could be palatable to disaffected Democrats and Independents.
No one knows whether Thursday night’s [Obama-Clinton] reconciliation will last. But I doubt it, since Obama was figuring his nice guy image gained him ground, while Hillary worried that unleashing Bill and knee-capping her rival lost her percentages. But when it gets down to winning and the race narrows, each will readjust and it will get nasty again. Bill is ungovernable, and growls and gets toothy in periods of quiet and tranquility when he recedes from the news
And third, the unanticipated November implosion of Rudy Giuliani coalesced many moderate Republicans behind one candidate, the once moribund McCain, while base conservatives were never quite energized over either Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, or Fred Thompson, and either diluted their support or never embraced a candidate with real passion.
It is understandable to lament the absence of conservative purity, but ahistorical to suggest that any recent Republican president would have met any of the litmus tests now demanded, given the dependency of the middle class on entitlements and its touchy-feely worldview.
Reagan, and Bush I and II all adjusted to that unfortunate reality. A Democrat did not appoint Souter, O’Connor, or Kennedy, nor raise payroll and gas taxes in the 1980s, nor sign amnesty and de facto open-border legislation in 1986, nor, later, increase federal spending well past the rate of inflation, or offer amnesty again in 2007. Tax cuts were great, but without caps on spending they were unfairly slurred as revenue reducers once deficits soared. Recent Republican congressional scandals mirror-imaged some of the Clinton-era roguery.
Reagan’s pragmatism on taxes, amnesty, new federal programs and government expansion, was continued by both Bush I and II. In that regard, McCain seems a continuum, not an abject disconnect. His problem is mostly temperament, as when he strayed he was blunt about what he was doing and sometimes gratuitously offended his base in a way that neither Reagan nor the Bushes dared. That is a legitimate concern of tactical aptitude, but not one so much of ideology.
He also never was a conservative idealist that voiced conservative themes on the campaign trail which he could not enact once elected. But in terms of judicial appointments, foreign policy and the war, and federal spending, he is not much different from any of the prior three Republican presidents, and might well prove tougher, given his age and occasional contrarianism. We worry over his immigration stance, but his former mistaken position was Reaganite to the core and reflected the Bush consensus. His new stance of closing the borders first would be a radical departure, and a conservative remedy.
In short, anyone who saw the Democratic debate Thursday night can envision the new future on their horizon: identity politics and self-congratulation over race and gender; tax increases (back to estate tax hikes, income tax rates go up, payroll tax caps lifted, etc); internationalism for the sake of internationalism (defer to the U.N., E.U., apologies for past conduct, contextualizing terrorism), more government (teachers, the poor, the middle class, etc. all need new government programs to add to those we have), and legislating judges (more Ginsburgs and Breyers).
Given all of the above, I don’t think it’s in the interest of conservatives for much longer to worry about McCain’s class ranking at Annapolis or how many planes he was nearly killed in.
The following is from http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com
Hijacking the GOP
Saturday, February 02, 2008 1:27 AM
It is the new spin.
For months, the Republican In Name Only media...Ingraham, Rush, Hannity, Hewitt...has assured everyone that they spoke for the base.
So when they annointed Romney, the Reagan heir apparent...the previously unknown candidate that changed his mind on a half a dozen key issues...from when he was governor of Kennedy-Kerry liberal Massachusetts to now born again conservative for a national audience--should have swept through the Iowa primary.
But a no money ex-preacher won.
Ok, ok so maybe the base just didn't get the message.
For days, the RINO media told them all about Huckabee and explained ever so carefully that while the man is nice, he isn't a REAL conservative, certainly not one to step into the hallowed steps of the reinvented Reagan. Painstakenly, they pointed out the wonderful man that THEY had chosen and instructed REAL conservatives every where to vote accordingly.
Then McCain took New Hampshire...and South Carolina!
And once again, slowly, strongly, they explained why the choice of the people is not the right choice. In fact, since all the elections up to then had been opened, the Independents and the Liberals must be trying to hijack the party of Reagan!
Then came Michigan and even though Romney had to revert to the old liberal trick of promising that government would bail out the auto workers and turn out was extremely low...a win was a win...and surely now the base was getting the right idea.
Only, in CLOSED conservative Florida primary...conservatives voted for McCain, the guy they had CLEARLY told the base NOT to vote for.
WHAT IS GOING ON???
Today came the answer...
The Republican party has been hijacked...by Independents!
Thus, none of the Republican In Name Only media believe they have an obligation to vote for McCain if those registered as Republicans should choose him to represent them.
In fact, many have expressed taking their marbles and going third party--or as in the case Ann Coulter--to take their marbles and go to the Liberal camp.
One blogger told Steve at Campaign Victory 08 that he/she wouldn't vote for McCain if Billy Clinton himself was running against him.
In other words, it's THEIR way or no way. Gone are the principle of winning the WOT. Gone are the principle of loyalty. Gone is the idea that we can trust the people to make choices and to accept the will of the majority.
Once upon a time, conservatives watched as liberals tore apart Joe Lieberman for his stand on the WOT. I remember hearing all the talk about allowing those within your party to disagree and how intellectually bankrupt the Left was to be afraid of dissension.
Yet, here they are...months later, doing the SAME thing.
The RINO media was right...the Republican party HAS been hijacked. For many years, it was taken over by extremists, absolutists, sanctimonious bullies that called themselves Constitutionist, Libertarians, Reaganites, everything but Republicans.
In 2008...Republicans in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida...and with God's help, 20 plus states come Tuesday...is taking the REPUBLICAN party back.
A Different Perspective
Victor Davis Hanson
From National Review Online
Three unexpected developments have given Republicans a shot this year at winning once thought impossible, given the normal desire of the electorate for a fresh party after eight years, and worries about Iraq and the economy. All can change, but for now they have a real shot.
The first, of course, is the radical turnabout in Iraq. Had we been seeing over 100 dead a month, the loss of Baghdad, and a failure of the surge, McCain would be finished and his Republican rivals would have carved out a third position between Bush and the Democrats that would have been still rejected by the voters.
Second, no one anticipated the surge of Obama, and the Clintons’ overt and clumsy efforts at personal destruction that turned off even liberals, a development that explains why a McCain in theory could be palatable to disaffected Democrats and Independents.
No one knows whether Thursday night’s [Obama-Clinton] reconciliation will last. But I doubt it, since Obama was figuring his nice guy image gained him ground, while Hillary worried that unleashing Bill and knee-capping her rival lost her percentages. But when it gets down to winning and the race narrows, each will readjust and it will get nasty again. Bill is ungovernable, and growls and gets toothy in periods of quiet and tranquility when he recedes from the news
And third, the unanticipated November implosion of Rudy Giuliani coalesced many moderate Republicans behind one candidate, the once moribund McCain, while base conservatives were never quite energized over either Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, or Fred Thompson, and either diluted their support or never embraced a candidate with real passion.
It is understandable to lament the absence of conservative purity, but ahistorical to suggest that any recent Republican president would have met any of the litmus tests now demanded, given the dependency of the middle class on entitlements and its touchy-feely worldview.
Reagan, and Bush I and II all adjusted to that unfortunate reality. A Democrat did not appoint Souter, O’Connor, or Kennedy, nor raise payroll and gas taxes in the 1980s, nor sign amnesty and de facto open-border legislation in 1986, nor, later, increase federal spending well past the rate of inflation, or offer amnesty again in 2007. Tax cuts were great, but without caps on spending they were unfairly slurred as revenue reducers once deficits soared. Recent Republican congressional scandals mirror-imaged some of the Clinton-era roguery.
Reagan’s pragmatism on taxes, amnesty, new federal programs and government expansion, was continued by both Bush I and II. In that regard, McCain seems a continuum, not an abject disconnect. His problem is mostly temperament, as when he strayed he was blunt about what he was doing and sometimes gratuitously offended his base in a way that neither Reagan nor the Bushes dared. That is a legitimate concern of tactical aptitude, but not one so much of ideology.
He also never was a conservative idealist that voiced conservative themes on the campaign trail which he could not enact once elected. But in terms of judicial appointments, foreign policy and the war, and federal spending, he is not much different from any of the prior three Republican presidents, and might well prove tougher, given his age and occasional contrarianism. We worry over his immigration stance, but his former mistaken position was Reaganite to the core and reflected the Bush consensus. His new stance of closing the borders first would be a radical departure, and a conservative remedy.
In short, anyone who saw the Democratic debate Thursday night can envision the new future on their horizon: identity politics and self-congratulation over race and gender; tax increases (back to estate tax hikes, income tax rates go up, payroll tax caps lifted, etc); internationalism for the sake of internationalism (defer to the U.N., E.U., apologies for past conduct, contextualizing terrorism), more government (teachers, the poor, the middle class, etc. all need new government programs to add to those we have), and legislating judges (more Ginsburgs and Breyers).
Given all of the above, I don’t think it’s in the interest of conservatives for much longer to worry about McCain’s class ranking at Annapolis or how many planes he was nearly killed in.
The following is from http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com
Hijacking the GOP
Saturday, February 02, 2008 1:27 AM
It is the new spin.
For months, the Republican In Name Only media...Ingraham, Rush, Hannity, Hewitt...has assured everyone that they spoke for the base.
So when they annointed Romney, the Reagan heir apparent...the previously unknown candidate that changed his mind on a half a dozen key issues...from when he was governor of Kennedy-Kerry liberal Massachusetts to now born again conservative for a national audience--should have swept through the Iowa primary.
But a no money ex-preacher won.
Ok, ok so maybe the base just didn't get the message.
For days, the RINO media told them all about Huckabee and explained ever so carefully that while the man is nice, he isn't a REAL conservative, certainly not one to step into the hallowed steps of the reinvented Reagan. Painstakenly, they pointed out the wonderful man that THEY had chosen and instructed REAL conservatives every where to vote accordingly.
Then McCain took New Hampshire...and South Carolina!
And once again, slowly, strongly, they explained why the choice of the people is not the right choice. In fact, since all the elections up to then had been opened, the Independents and the Liberals must be trying to hijack the party of Reagan!
Then came Michigan and even though Romney had to revert to the old liberal trick of promising that government would bail out the auto workers and turn out was extremely low...a win was a win...and surely now the base was getting the right idea.
Only, in CLOSED conservative Florida primary...conservatives voted for McCain, the guy they had CLEARLY told the base NOT to vote for.
WHAT IS GOING ON???
Today came the answer...
The Republican party has been hijacked...by Independents!
Thus, none of the Republican In Name Only media believe they have an obligation to vote for McCain if those registered as Republicans should choose him to represent them.
In fact, many have expressed taking their marbles and going third party--or as in the case Ann Coulter--to take their marbles and go to the Liberal camp.
One blogger told Steve at Campaign Victory 08 that he/she wouldn't vote for McCain if Billy Clinton himself was running against him.
In other words, it's THEIR way or no way. Gone are the principle of winning the WOT. Gone are the principle of loyalty. Gone is the idea that we can trust the people to make choices and to accept the will of the majority.
Once upon a time, conservatives watched as liberals tore apart Joe Lieberman for his stand on the WOT. I remember hearing all the talk about allowing those within your party to disagree and how intellectually bankrupt the Left was to be afraid of dissension.
Yet, here they are...months later, doing the SAME thing.
The RINO media was right...the Republican party HAS been hijacked. For many years, it was taken over by extremists, absolutists, sanctimonious bullies that called themselves Constitutionist, Libertarians, Reaganites, everything but Republicans.
In 2008...Republicans in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida...and with God's help, 20 plus states come Tuesday...is taking the REPUBLICAN party back.
McCain: Talk Show Critics
Last night, I was on Eric Dondero's BlogTalkRadio.com/Libertarian, and the host and I got into a good exchange about McCain. His point was that McCain was too liberal. My point was that the facts, such as the ratings by the American Conservative Union (ACU) the Club For Growth indicated that McCain was a conservative.
The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain. I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary didn't also have some decent rating from that group. I cited The Almamac of American Politics, which showed the Club (fiscal conservatives) gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.
Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to conservative politics, but rather on increasingly pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism.
Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that he is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher.
Last night, the Austin Statesman in Texas (see the column below) endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.
The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a moderate conservative, and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion. Rather, it is what the facts show.
John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX yesterday: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.
I would say McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, nor anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% last time).
So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them. They have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics. A "dittohead" appears to be nothing more than a person incapable of independent thought.
I told my host/friend last night that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. Opinions without any basis in fact are delusions. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality.
I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong. When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.
You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Hugh Hewitt or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.
John McCain rejectes the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully, as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily.
"For many Americans, John McCain is the closest thing our politics has to a national hero, a presidential candidate widely admired in 2000 and an independent leader of great force in the years after." (Michael Barone, The Almanac of American Politics, 2008, p. 95)
I received the following from Sharon. I agree with her completely.
Concur 100% -- don't waste time on the unappeasables that John McCain will never please no matter how hard he would try. All you have to do is look at how pro-life Sen McCain has been verus Romney and yet the so-called conservative leaders are going to Romney. Makes no sense. They have been pandered to for so many years that it is their way or no way even if it means losing elections. Believe this group has driven a lot of people in the Republican Party to quit being active or register as Independents -- we need to get them back in the Republican Party or we are going to keep losing elections.
Past time for the Republican Party to reach out to voters and welcome them without a litmus test. Long time Conservative who prefers to call herself a Common Sense Republican today.
Thanks for inviting those of us from the Rudy camp to join you! We will work just as hard to elect Sen McCain as we would have for Rudy.
Sharon Caliendo
Norman, OK
Note: Sharon is the founder of the Yahoo Group for Rudy Giuliani, which has now become the Rudy Supporters for McCain. She's one of the finer people in American politics.
The following is from Greg:
I did something last night that I said I'd never do....I watched the Fox News Channel. Specifically, the "All-Stars" on Special Report.
They were talking about whether conservatives could rally around Romney quick enough to change the dynamics of the race, and particularly by Tuesday. Fred Barnes said, "Too late." Mort said, "Romney should campaign hard for the nominee (McCain), and position himself as the next in line for the presidency." [Shudder] As usual, Charles Krauthammer had the most insightful insight: He noted, in looking at the polls running through this primary season, McCain and Rudy split about 50% of the Republicans, and with the post-Florida Fox News poll showing McCain with 48% of Republicans support, Krauthammer's conclusion is that McCain got ALL of Rudy's supporters.
And the reason for this is because of Rudy's behavior after Florida. Other candidates who have gotten out of the race and endorsed one of their opponents have never acted like Rudy -- joining themselves to the hip of their former opponent, being seen everywhere with them, going on The Tonight Show together. Rudy's enthusiasm -- genuine enthusiasm -- for McCain, apparently, has brought all of his supporters over to McCain. I know I wouldn't be very enthusiastic for McCain if it weren't for watching Rudy's support for him over the past four days. It's truly quite amazing.
As for conservatives rallying around Romney, the only ones I've seen over the past few days come to Mitt are some talkshow hosts -- Mark Levin, Sean Hannity. Rush hasn't formally endorsed, but he's been savaging McCain for weeks now. I think what's interesting is to see how little impact these people actually have among rank-and-file Republicans. GOP voters are ignoring these talkshow hosts, including Hugh Hewitt who has been shilling for Romney for the better part of a year. By dumping on the presumptive nominee, they're marginalizing themselves. Frankly, I'm delighted their flailing is falling on deaf ears.
Greg (of RudySupportersforMcCain on Yahoo)
The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain. I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary didn't also have some decent rating from that group. I cited The Almamac of American Politics, which showed the Club (fiscal conservatives) gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.
Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to conservative politics, but rather on increasingly pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism.
Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that he is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher.
Last night, the Austin Statesman in Texas (see the column below) endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.
The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a moderate conservative, and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion. Rather, it is what the facts show.
John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX yesterday: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.
I would say McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, nor anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% last time).
So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them. They have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics. A "dittohead" appears to be nothing more than a person incapable of independent thought.
I told my host/friend last night that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. Opinions without any basis in fact are delusions. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality.
I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong. When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.
You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Hugh Hewitt or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.
John McCain rejectes the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully, as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily.
"For many Americans, John McCain is the closest thing our politics has to a national hero, a presidential candidate widely admired in 2000 and an independent leader of great force in the years after." (Michael Barone, The Almanac of American Politics, 2008, p. 95)
I received the following from Sharon. I agree with her completely.
Concur 100% -- don't waste time on the unappeasables that John McCain will never please no matter how hard he would try. All you have to do is look at how pro-life Sen McCain has been verus Romney and yet the so-called conservative leaders are going to Romney. Makes no sense. They have been pandered to for so many years that it is their way or no way even if it means losing elections. Believe this group has driven a lot of people in the Republican Party to quit being active or register as Independents -- we need to get them back in the Republican Party or we are going to keep losing elections.
Past time for the Republican Party to reach out to voters and welcome them without a litmus test. Long time Conservative who prefers to call herself a Common Sense Republican today.
Thanks for inviting those of us from the Rudy camp to join you! We will work just as hard to elect Sen McCain as we would have for Rudy.
Sharon Caliendo
Norman, OK
Note: Sharon is the founder of the Yahoo Group for Rudy Giuliani, which has now become the Rudy Supporters for McCain. She's one of the finer people in American politics.
The following is from Greg:
I did something last night that I said I'd never do....I watched the Fox News Channel. Specifically, the "All-Stars" on Special Report.
They were talking about whether conservatives could rally around Romney quick enough to change the dynamics of the race, and particularly by Tuesday. Fred Barnes said, "Too late." Mort said, "Romney should campaign hard for the nominee (McCain), and position himself as the next in line for the presidency." [Shudder] As usual, Charles Krauthammer had the most insightful insight: He noted, in looking at the polls running through this primary season, McCain and Rudy split about 50% of the Republicans, and with the post-Florida Fox News poll showing McCain with 48% of Republicans support, Krauthammer's conclusion is that McCain got ALL of Rudy's supporters.
And the reason for this is because of Rudy's behavior after Florida. Other candidates who have gotten out of the race and endorsed one of their opponents have never acted like Rudy -- joining themselves to the hip of their former opponent, being seen everywhere with them, going on The Tonight Show together. Rudy's enthusiasm -- genuine enthusiasm -- for McCain, apparently, has brought all of his supporters over to McCain. I know I wouldn't be very enthusiastic for McCain if it weren't for watching Rudy's support for him over the past four days. It's truly quite amazing.
As for conservatives rallying around Romney, the only ones I've seen over the past few days come to Mitt are some talkshow hosts -- Mark Levin, Sean Hannity. Rush hasn't formally endorsed, but he's been savaging McCain for weeks now. I think what's interesting is to see how little impact these people actually have among rank-and-file Republicans. GOP voters are ignoring these talkshow hosts, including Hugh Hewitt who has been shilling for Romney for the better part of a year. By dumping on the presumptive nominee, they're marginalizing themselves. Frankly, I'm delighted their flailing is falling on deaf ears.
Greg (of RudySupportersforMcCain on Yahoo)
Friday, February 1, 2008
Austin Statesman Endorses John McCain
In face of challenge, McCain bends but doesn’t break
By The Editorial Board, Austin Statesman | Friday, February 1, 2008, 07:30 PM
The best candidate for president the Republican Party could offer to American voters in November is Sen. John McCain of Arizona. A conservative, McCain also is pragmatic - he tries to solve problems, not just make the world, or the nation, work the way ideologues say it should.
At this point, just a few days before so-called “Super Tuesday,” when more than 20 states hold Republican primaries, McCain is the front-runner. Unless party sentiment swings heavily to him or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney that day, the two men then might well look to the Texas GOP primary on March 4 as the decisive battleground.
Just a few months ago, McCain was considered politically dead. Some of his closest advisers quit; others were forced out. But McCain didn’t quit - he fought back, on his own terms, and now leads his party’s race. It’s the kind of performance that inspires confidence.
One of McCain’s strengths is that he’s a lot more blunt than most politicians. In fact, it gets him into trouble sometimes. In Michigan, as Romney rolled out promises to bring back all those auto factory jobs, McCain told the truth - most of those jobs are gone forever.
The recent economic news has seized America’s attention, and McCain has acknowledged the economy is not his expertise. But any president’s first job is ensuring the defense of our republic, and McCain is an expert on that.
By now, most voters are generally aware of his military background. He is the son and grandson of Navy admirals. A graduate of the Naval Academy, McCain became a pilot. He was shot down over North Vietnam and spent five years as a prisoner of war and was tortured.
After he was released, McCain eventually moved to Arizona and started a political career, serving first in the U.S. House and, since 1987, in the U.S. Senate.
Given that background, it is not surprising that McCain today is most passionate about the United States not walking away from its disastrous war in Iraq without first ensuring that a stable, friendly government is in place. But he has been no mindless defender of President Bush’s handling of that war - he was among the early critics, even as he later stoutly supported the “surge” of additional troops to stabilize Iraq in the face of public opposition.
We don’t know that we would agree with every move a President McCain would make regarding Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. But we’re confident that he would not insist that a mission had been accomplished when it had not and that he would not hesitate to replace commanders or diplomats who needed replacing.
And McCain has shown that he knows that to dissent from a president’s defense policy is not tantamount to treachery. If he’s the nominee, we can expect a high level of debate over U.S. military commitments.
We’re also confident that, in fighting terrorism, McCain would not besmirch the honor of the American people. When McCain demanded that Americans be barred from torturing this nation’s enemies, he wielded a moral authority that no other U.S. leader could match.
McCain has said he would, as president, appoint Supreme Court justices like the deeply conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both Bush appointees. He opposes abortion and defends the right of individuals to bear arms.
But he knows that politics is supposed to be about working together to solve problems, not just crushing political enemies. And so he worked with Democrats in Congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation and on a major immigration reform bill that ultimately did not pass.
McCain’s record in Congress is that of a solid Republican. He has a lifetime rating of 82.3 percent from the American Conservative Union. Some conservatives say that rating isn’t nearly high enough. For us, though, it’s an indication that McCain cannot be zipped into anyone’s straitjacket.
His true conservatism can be seen in his willingness to recognize the threat of global warming and the need to conserve Earth’s atmosphere and environment. He refuses to pretend there is no problem.
McCain also looks commanding compared with his remaining GOP rivals.
Romney is trying to evolve rapidly from his record as a moderately progressive governor of Massachusetts to the heir of Ronald Reagan. Politicians are entitled to change their minds about issues from time to time, and every politician has to adjust to changing circumstances. But Romney abuses the privilege.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is an intelligent, charming man who appeals especially to conservative evangelical Christians. But his rather goofy idea for a national sales tax to replace the federal income tax relegates him to the ranks of second-tier candidates.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, from Texas, is a niche candidate, a devoted libertarian with a resolute following, but he’s hardly a contender for the world’s most important job.
We’ve had enough of the bitter partisanship of recent years. We hope that McCain can find a new path if he is elected. Texas Republicans would do well to support him in their March 4 primary.
http://statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/editorial/entries/2008/02/01/in_face_of_challenge_mccain_be.html
WHAT JOHN MCCAIN MUST DO (By Steve Maloney)
John McCain needs to be able to state his position on issues in about 40 seconds (each) of compelling statements. He's not there yet. On an issue like health care, we need to do a heckuva lot more than generalize about socialized medicine. There does have to be a safety net -- it just shouldn't be one iwth 300 million people in it.
The public generally has a fear about "losing their health care," and we need to deal with that effectively. We can't afford a candidacy like Dole in 1996, where he responded to Clinton's specifics with rambling comments about "Everybody knows where ole Bob Dole stands." If they did know, they didn't like it.
The Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts of the world desperatedly want John to lose. They want him to appeal to a conservative "base" that isn't big enough to carry Alabama. Let's make sure we don't give them the satisfaction.
We do need a 50-state campaign (although I'd be satisfied with 45 states). There is enough time to conduct such an effort. Sorry, John, no vacations.
By The Editorial Board, Austin Statesman | Friday, February 1, 2008, 07:30 PM
The best candidate for president the Republican Party could offer to American voters in November is Sen. John McCain of Arizona. A conservative, McCain also is pragmatic - he tries to solve problems, not just make the world, or the nation, work the way ideologues say it should.
At this point, just a few days before so-called “Super Tuesday,” when more than 20 states hold Republican primaries, McCain is the front-runner. Unless party sentiment swings heavily to him or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney that day, the two men then might well look to the Texas GOP primary on March 4 as the decisive battleground.
Just a few months ago, McCain was considered politically dead. Some of his closest advisers quit; others were forced out. But McCain didn’t quit - he fought back, on his own terms, and now leads his party’s race. It’s the kind of performance that inspires confidence.
One of McCain’s strengths is that he’s a lot more blunt than most politicians. In fact, it gets him into trouble sometimes. In Michigan, as Romney rolled out promises to bring back all those auto factory jobs, McCain told the truth - most of those jobs are gone forever.
The recent economic news has seized America’s attention, and McCain has acknowledged the economy is not his expertise. But any president’s first job is ensuring the defense of our republic, and McCain is an expert on that.
By now, most voters are generally aware of his military background. He is the son and grandson of Navy admirals. A graduate of the Naval Academy, McCain became a pilot. He was shot down over North Vietnam and spent five years as a prisoner of war and was tortured.
After he was released, McCain eventually moved to Arizona and started a political career, serving first in the U.S. House and, since 1987, in the U.S. Senate.
Given that background, it is not surprising that McCain today is most passionate about the United States not walking away from its disastrous war in Iraq without first ensuring that a stable, friendly government is in place. But he has been no mindless defender of President Bush’s handling of that war - he was among the early critics, even as he later stoutly supported the “surge” of additional troops to stabilize Iraq in the face of public opposition.
We don’t know that we would agree with every move a President McCain would make regarding Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. But we’re confident that he would not insist that a mission had been accomplished when it had not and that he would not hesitate to replace commanders or diplomats who needed replacing.
And McCain has shown that he knows that to dissent from a president’s defense policy is not tantamount to treachery. If he’s the nominee, we can expect a high level of debate over U.S. military commitments.
We’re also confident that, in fighting terrorism, McCain would not besmirch the honor of the American people. When McCain demanded that Americans be barred from torturing this nation’s enemies, he wielded a moral authority that no other U.S. leader could match.
McCain has said he would, as president, appoint Supreme Court justices like the deeply conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both Bush appointees. He opposes abortion and defends the right of individuals to bear arms.
But he knows that politics is supposed to be about working together to solve problems, not just crushing political enemies. And so he worked with Democrats in Congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation and on a major immigration reform bill that ultimately did not pass.
McCain’s record in Congress is that of a solid Republican. He has a lifetime rating of 82.3 percent from the American Conservative Union. Some conservatives say that rating isn’t nearly high enough. For us, though, it’s an indication that McCain cannot be zipped into anyone’s straitjacket.
His true conservatism can be seen in his willingness to recognize the threat of global warming and the need to conserve Earth’s atmosphere and environment. He refuses to pretend there is no problem.
McCain also looks commanding compared with his remaining GOP rivals.
Romney is trying to evolve rapidly from his record as a moderately progressive governor of Massachusetts to the heir of Ronald Reagan. Politicians are entitled to change their minds about issues from time to time, and every politician has to adjust to changing circumstances. But Romney abuses the privilege.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is an intelligent, charming man who appeals especially to conservative evangelical Christians. But his rather goofy idea for a national sales tax to replace the federal income tax relegates him to the ranks of second-tier candidates.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, from Texas, is a niche candidate, a devoted libertarian with a resolute following, but he’s hardly a contender for the world’s most important job.
We’ve had enough of the bitter partisanship of recent years. We hope that McCain can find a new path if he is elected. Texas Republicans would do well to support him in their March 4 primary.
http://statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/editorial/entries/2008/02/01/in_face_of_challenge_mccain_be.html
WHAT JOHN MCCAIN MUST DO (By Steve Maloney)
John McCain needs to be able to state his position on issues in about 40 seconds (each) of compelling statements. He's not there yet. On an issue like health care, we need to do a heckuva lot more than generalize about socialized medicine. There does have to be a safety net -- it just shouldn't be one iwth 300 million people in it.
The public generally has a fear about "losing their health care," and we need to deal with that effectively. We can't afford a candidacy like Dole in 1996, where he responded to Clinton's specifics with rambling comments about "Everybody knows where ole Bob Dole stands." If they did know, they didn't like it.
The Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts of the world desperatedly want John to lose. They want him to appeal to a conservative "base" that isn't big enough to carry Alabama. Let's make sure we don't give them the satisfaction.
We do need a 50-state campaign (although I'd be satisfied with 45 states). There is enough time to conduct such an effort. Sorry, John, no vacations.
JOHN MCCAIN NEEDS YOUR HELP
NOTE: AFTER THIS WEEKEND, MY DAILY POSTINGS WILL BE AVAILABLE ONLY AT: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/. At bottom of column see my remarks about Ann Coulter.
This week I sent the following to BradMarston of http://mccainvictory08.com, a major operative for Senator John McCain.
I'm going to ask dozens of bloggers to join the Bloggers for McCain, and I believe most of them will. The "Rudy" group on Yahoo is mostly in McCain's camp now, and many of them are talented activists (Sharon, the group leader, worked in NH & FL for Rudy). They are one of the "sane" groups (as opposed to the other kind) on Yahoo Groups.
I'll be writing a lot about McCain over the next several weeks. My column today cites Michael Barone's comments. If McCain has a great Internet campaign, he can win.
The following is Brad's response.
Stephen,
It is great to have you on board.
Thank you for also reaching out to the former Rudy bloggers and getting them to come on board. Rudy's concession speech was wonderful, heartfelt and realistic. John McCain will be the nominee and hopefully President.
Stephen let me ask you a favor. I am a victim of my own success. You remember back in November when I had to beg bloggers to co-sign our post on the official blog. Now I could get 100 bloggers to sign it. I have been fortunate enough to have so many people, so much more qualified than I to join up. Please have your former Rudy Bloggers contact Michael Schuyler at michael@schuyler.com for info on the MV08 blog.
Michael is the MAN. He has generated 21 new McCain blogs just in the past month.
You and I are a special case. We understand the importance of the internet to campaigns. (I Love Sarah Palin). Please keep contacting me personally but also cc Michael when you do.
Stephen, again. Thank you so much for your support and all your kind words on my behalf.
Warmest regards,
Brad
I hope everyone who visits this blog seizes the initiative (contacting Michael Schuyler at michael @schuyler.com or going directly to: http://mccainvictory08.com) Brad outlines. The presidential election will not be held until November 4, 2008, but the foundation for victory will be established long before Election Day. Thanks so much for your assistance.
NOTE: In my previous column, which I urge you to read, I point out Michael Barone's excellent description of "McCain, the Man."
I'll be writing more each day between now and February 6 about steps Senator McCain must take to win the election next November. My emphasis in the next few days will be on the Supreme Court, health care, immigration, and the War on Terror, on all of which the Senator must sharpen his stands. It will be no picnic running against the team of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (who now seems to recognize that he will be on the ticket as the vice-presidential nominee).
I received the following comments on my previous post:
A Red Mind in a Blue State said...
Palin seems interesting as a VP choice.
February 1, 2008 5:24 AM
GenXDad said...
I just signed on with MV08. Thanks for the link.The far right is making a list stand, which is fine - better to hash this out now than six months from now when we're in the general election season. Most likely, McCain will come out tested and stronger. On the off chance he falters, better now than later.
GenXDad has a terrific column on Townhall. You can find him at: http://genxdad.townhall.com/. Christopher, who also commented is at: http://youngrepublican.com/. Another strong McCain supporter is Malia ("Sanity 102"), who is at: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com/. I suggest that people like "A Red Mind in a Blue State" visit the main "Draft Palin" (Adam's) website at: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/. For readers of "Vogue" magazine, Sarah Palin is featured in this month's (February's) issue.
Sanity 102 (http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com/) gave me a call from Hawaii this a.m. and noted that Ann Coulter (on Sean Hannity's show) had "threatened" to endorse Hillary Clinton for President because she is "strong" on the WOT. In fact, Mrs. Clinton barely acknowledges that such a war exists -- presumably because she's trying to appeal to the 20% of Democrats who say in polls that they hope the U.S. loses in Iraq. Miss Coulter continues to be a front-runner in the "Scum of the Earth" contest. Here's how I replied to Sanity:
I'll be writing (maybe for last time) on Ann Coulter this weekend. What's next? An Afro? A miraculous conversion to Christianity? An affair with KFed? A sign of human decency? I'm sure Hillary will be delighted (?) at Ann's political conversion.
NOTE: The former Rudy Giuliani Group on Yahoo has changed its name into: Rudy Supporters for McCain. I urge everyone who thinks well of Rudy -- and I certainly do -- will join the group. You can find out more about it by e-mailing: SKCalien@aol.com. SkCalien is "Sharon."
Today, I sent the following urgent message to McCain operatives:
It would be a very good idea to put Sharon (SKCalien@aol.com) on the McCain Campaign payroll. He needs people who are great organizers -- a lot more than he does big media buys. He has many such people now, and he needs more. People with Internet talents, speechwriters (hint: me), and GOTV types are going to be essential in this campaign. We need a Joe Trippi type or two, although without Joe's dismaying politics. Moveon.org will attack John from the left and -- believe it or not -- from the right. They will do anything in their power to deny him votes. McCain needs FEMALE veterans to get out front advocating his campaign. He needs Hispanics from Arizona and Texas to endorse him -- he won big with the Hispanic vote in the last Senate campaign. He even carried Apache County, which is unheard of for Republicans. Another very important point: Right now, he needs the endorsement of Gov. Sarah Palin, the nation's most popular elected official.
ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today announced that Republican Party of Pennsylvania Chairman Robert A. Gleason, Jr. has endorsed John McCain for president.*
"Today, I am excited to personally endorse Senator John McCain, who has proven to me that he is by far the candidate most ready to lead our country as our next president. Rarely does a candidate possess the level of experience and leadership qualities that Senator McCain brings to this race," said Chairman Gleason. "As a fellow veteran, I feel his sacrifices to our country are examples of leadership defined, not leadership discussed. Over the next nine and a half months, I look forward to working alongside former Governor Tom Ridge, a faithful McCain supporter, to deliver all of Pennsylvania's 21 electoral votes to Senator John McCain, the next Republican President of the United States of America."
John McCain thanked Chairman Gleason for his support, saying "I am grateful for Rob Gleason's support. I admire Rob's long and distinguished record of service to our party and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. His advice and counsel is important as we work toward victory in Pennsylvania."
This week I sent the following to BradMarston of http://mccainvictory08.com, a major operative for Senator John McCain.
I'm going to ask dozens of bloggers to join the Bloggers for McCain, and I believe most of them will. The "Rudy" group on Yahoo is mostly in McCain's camp now, and many of them are talented activists (Sharon, the group leader, worked in NH & FL for Rudy). They are one of the "sane" groups (as opposed to the other kind) on Yahoo Groups.
I'll be writing a lot about McCain over the next several weeks. My column today cites Michael Barone's comments. If McCain has a great Internet campaign, he can win.
The following is Brad's response.
Stephen,
It is great to have you on board.
Thank you for also reaching out to the former Rudy bloggers and getting them to come on board. Rudy's concession speech was wonderful, heartfelt and realistic. John McCain will be the nominee and hopefully President.
Stephen let me ask you a favor. I am a victim of my own success. You remember back in November when I had to beg bloggers to co-sign our post on the official blog. Now I could get 100 bloggers to sign it. I have been fortunate enough to have so many people, so much more qualified than I to join up. Please have your former Rudy Bloggers contact Michael Schuyler at michael@schuyler.com for info on the MV08 blog.
Michael is the MAN. He has generated 21 new McCain blogs just in the past month.
You and I are a special case. We understand the importance of the internet to campaigns. (I Love Sarah Palin). Please keep contacting me personally but also cc Michael when you do.
Stephen, again. Thank you so much for your support and all your kind words on my behalf.
Warmest regards,
Brad
I hope everyone who visits this blog seizes the initiative (contacting Michael Schuyler at michael @schuyler.com or going directly to: http://mccainvictory08.com) Brad outlines. The presidential election will not be held until November 4, 2008, but the foundation for victory will be established long before Election Day. Thanks so much for your assistance.
NOTE: In my previous column, which I urge you to read, I point out Michael Barone's excellent description of "McCain, the Man."
I'll be writing more each day between now and February 6 about steps Senator McCain must take to win the election next November. My emphasis in the next few days will be on the Supreme Court, health care, immigration, and the War on Terror, on all of which the Senator must sharpen his stands. It will be no picnic running against the team of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (who now seems to recognize that he will be on the ticket as the vice-presidential nominee).
I received the following comments on my previous post:
A Red Mind in a Blue State said...
Palin seems interesting as a VP choice.
February 1, 2008 5:24 AM
GenXDad said...
I just signed on with MV08. Thanks for the link.The far right is making a list stand, which is fine - better to hash this out now than six months from now when we're in the general election season. Most likely, McCain will come out tested and stronger. On the off chance he falters, better now than later.
GenXDad has a terrific column on Townhall. You can find him at: http://genxdad.townhall.com/. Christopher, who also commented is at: http://youngrepublican.com/. Another strong McCain supporter is Malia ("Sanity 102"), who is at: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com/. I suggest that people like "A Red Mind in a Blue State" visit the main "Draft Palin" (Adam's) website at: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/. For readers of "Vogue" magazine, Sarah Palin is featured in this month's (February's) issue.
Sanity 102 (http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com/) gave me a call from Hawaii this a.m. and noted that Ann Coulter (on Sean Hannity's show) had "threatened" to endorse Hillary Clinton for President because she is "strong" on the WOT. In fact, Mrs. Clinton barely acknowledges that such a war exists -- presumably because she's trying to appeal to the 20% of Democrats who say in polls that they hope the U.S. loses in Iraq. Miss Coulter continues to be a front-runner in the "Scum of the Earth" contest. Here's how I replied to Sanity:
I'll be writing (maybe for last time) on Ann Coulter this weekend. What's next? An Afro? A miraculous conversion to Christianity? An affair with KFed? A sign of human decency? I'm sure Hillary will be delighted (?) at Ann's political conversion.
NOTE: The former Rudy Giuliani Group on Yahoo has changed its name into: Rudy Supporters for McCain. I urge everyone who thinks well of Rudy -- and I certainly do -- will join the group. You can find out more about it by e-mailing: SKCalien@aol.com. SkCalien is "Sharon."
Today, I sent the following urgent message to McCain operatives:
It would be a very good idea to put Sharon (SKCalien@aol.com) on the McCain Campaign payroll. He needs people who are great organizers -- a lot more than he does big media buys. He has many such people now, and he needs more. People with Internet talents, speechwriters (hint: me), and GOTV types are going to be essential in this campaign. We need a Joe Trippi type or two, although without Joe's dismaying politics. Moveon.org will attack John from the left and -- believe it or not -- from the right. They will do anything in their power to deny him votes. McCain needs FEMALE veterans to get out front advocating his campaign. He needs Hispanics from Arizona and Texas to endorse him -- he won big with the Hispanic vote in the last Senate campaign. He even carried Apache County, which is unheard of for Republicans. Another very important point: Right now, he needs the endorsement of Gov. Sarah Palin, the nation's most popular elected official.
KEYSTONE STATE FOR JOHN MCCAIN
ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today announced that Republican Party of Pennsylvania Chairman Robert A. Gleason, Jr. has endorsed John McCain for president.*
"Today, I am excited to personally endorse Senator John McCain, who has proven to me that he is by far the candidate most ready to lead our country as our next president. Rarely does a candidate possess the level of experience and leadership qualities that Senator McCain brings to this race," said Chairman Gleason. "As a fellow veteran, I feel his sacrifices to our country are examples of leadership defined, not leadership discussed. Over the next nine and a half months, I look forward to working alongside former Governor Tom Ridge, a faithful McCain supporter, to deliver all of Pennsylvania's 21 electoral votes to Senator John McCain, the next Republican President of the United States of America."
John McCain thanked Chairman Gleason for his support, saying "I am grateful for Rob Gleason's support. I admire Rob's long and distinguished record of service to our party and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. His advice and counsel is important as we work toward victory in Pennsylvania."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
