The Candidates
Featured Archives
Unfortunately, I had to miss Sen. McCain’s blogger conference call this morning. However, there are several good recaps that are definitely worth your time:
“John McCain has made clear repeatedly that he would do more than the Bush administration to communicate. He would talk more about Iraq. About the deficit. About immigration. About global warming. About judges. He believes that he would be able to get through to people if he just explained. In that sense, he seems much more like Reagan or (Bill, but not Hillary) Clinton. (Hillary seems to prefer the Bush model)”
“[Sen. John McCain] began by discussing the two major votes in the Senate yesterday — the confirmation of Judge Southwick and the failure of the Democrats to force a vote on the Dream Act. McCain returned to Washington to help get Southwick confirmed, but left for Iowa before the Dream Act vote, in order to attend an event at which he gave what he described as a major speech about what’s next in the entire Middle East region now that “we’re succeeding in Iraq.”
“(McCain on Southwick) …If the standard becomes, this individual “appears to have the intention of intolerance” – what’s that all about? I voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg, not because I agreed with her philosophy, for God’s sake, but because I believed elections have consequences… The Gang of 14 worked because Republicans were in the majority, and we could find seven reasonable Democrats who would agree to only filibuster in extraordinary consequences. I’m proud that we were able to get Roberts, Alito and many judges at appellate and circuit court through under that agreement.
“Those with military experience understand that torture is a “notoriously unreliable” way obtain information, McCain said, because if you inflict enough pain on somebody, that person will tell you what you want to hear.”
“The decline of casualties in Iraq — “I hope Harry Reid pays attention to it, who declared the war lost.”
“McCain would oppose Law of the Sea Treaty”
“McCain Calls for ‘League of Democracies’”
Be sure to read them all.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I like Mitt, but if McCain actually did manage to come back somehow, it would make him very strong for the general election. If you asked me who my second choice was for the GOP nomination, I would probably say McCain.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Wow, we may have found the one person on earth who likes both Romney and McCain!
October 25th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
above all the others, that is
October 25th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Metro,
My top two choices are McCain and Romney (probably in that order).
October 25th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I think McCain and Huckabee would be a great ticket
October 25th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I overreacted before, I won’t necessarily ignore posts from Metro (how can you). I just don’t think I deserve to be called a fraud and a hack. That’s all. The reason few people like both McCain and Romney is because when you are in the heat of a campaign and have picked a side, it gets harder to see the good in the other candidate. Those two are often at odds. I was undecided for awhile, so I can see a lot of good in McCain and a lot of good in Romney. They have both done heroic things in my opinion, but different things. It is interesting to think about the psychology of who is attracted to what candidates. Why does one person love Rudy and hate Romney? Why does another person love Romney and hate Rudy? Why does someone else hate both of them? It’s all very interesting, but you don’t get to see this side of Republicans very much because you usually don’t have this big of a field. In 2004 we were all for Bush, so the differences were not as magnified.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I don’t hate candidates. Not even Hillary Clinton. People who hate candidates bore me. I hate certain ideas and philosophies.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
My top choices are McCain and Romney as well. Why? Well frankly as much as I like Guiliani on domestic policy I think his foreign policy thinking is very undeveloped and that he just defaults to “be aggressive”. I think Guiliani is more Bush then Bush (W that is) when it comes to foreign policy.
McCain and Romney’s experience/positions give me confidence they’d take a more pragmatic yet still aggressive approach to foreign policy.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Matthew, I apologize for using the word hate. I should have just said “dislike”. It is risky to vote totally on ideas and philosophies though. There are many people who might fit your criteria on a certain checklist of issues but would still not make good Presidents. Perhaps they can’t communicate the ideas well. Perhaps they don’t have the energy. Or the discipline. Plenty of candidates who might have shared Ronald Reagan’s issue positions would not have been able to communicate them nearly as effectively. A lot of voting is done by gut instinct.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Ajay, that is my issue with Giuliani as well. He doesn’t seem to know much other than to just be aggressive. Foreign policy is much more complicated than that. Joe Biden was right when he said Giuliani doesn’t know beans about it. Romney doesn’t have much experience there either, but his positions are more nuanced. McCain does have the experience, but Governors make better Presidents than Senators contrary to what Sam Brownback said. I also disagree with Rudy on social issues. The combination of his aggression on foreign policy with his social liberalism is very unappealing to me. On the issue of taxes though, Rudy is right on.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Not only that but don’t you have to trust what a politician is saying or if you don’t trust him/her be able to read between the lines to see what he/she would really do.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Giuliani is a consummate negotiator and will thus be great at the nuance of foreign policy. But he also knows the lessons of history: Be a Churchill, not a Chamberlain, a Reagan, not a Carter, a Bush, not a Kerry.
Mitt’s an in-between on those. That’s scary.
Yes, you’re right, voters will vote on gut instinct for who they want to lead them, especially in a potential time of crisis. They don’t have to imagine with Rudy, they saw it on 9-11. He will be an irresistable choice in the voting booth.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
He ain’t irresistable to me, hahaha. I can resist him easily. I think that Ed Koch, Mark Green, and Charlie Rangel would disagree with your assessment of him as a consummate negotiator. I know you’re going to just say, “Well, those guys are liberal nutcases who are jealous of Rudy.” That still doesn’t make everything they say worthless.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Clarence, with a few exceptions, he successfully negotiated with an 85-90% liberal Democratic council, getting his way on just about everything. And got more radical change than a GOP dominated government ever has. That probably makes him the top negotiator of all time.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
“voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg, not because I agreed with her philosophy, for God’s sake, but because I believed elections have consequences…”
another reason why I don’t like McCain–so what if Clinton won the election you still vote “NO” on Justice ruth ginsberg. Elections don’t make one King.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Metro, do you actually believe he would have even won a third term if he had run for it and there HADN’T been a September 11?
October 25th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Clarence, yes, because the transformation of NYC was undeniable. Even one of the mobsters who put a hit out on Rudy, ended up campaigning for him years later, saying “just look at New York, Rudy cleaned it up nice!” That was just on Fox a little while ago.
Then again, there’s a ton of liberal nutjobs there who don’t care about that, and maybe they realized he’d won too many of the battles.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I predicted that one right…that you would call them liberal nutjobs. I think I used the word nutcases. He probably was a better Mayor than having some extreme liberal in there. I just had always heard that Giuliani was not known for his tact.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Still touting the Gang of 14 even in the face of another Democrat smear job like Southwick.
This is why I actively dislike McCain. Acting like the hero when he’s personally responsible for at least half a dozen quality Circuit nominees being allowed to have their reputations trashed.
But, my God, we must have “comity” in the Senate (code for Democrats win).
October 25th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
“He was probably a better Mayor than having some extreme liberal in there.”
OMG.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Yep, I was certainly right about you.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
being a fraud and a hack?
October 25th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
My round up is now posted at http://www.blogs4McCain.com if anyone is interested.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
In this instance, a hack. That was an outrageous statement totally out of touch with reality.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
As much as I hate Romney, and admit that, I would never make that statement about Romney and MA. I would never compromise my integrity or look so foolish. And Rudy accomplished far more in NYC than Romney did in MA, a change so huge it’s apparent to the naked eye.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
I said that Rudy was probably a better Mayor than his liberal predecessors. I didn’t say he was a bad mayor at all.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
That shows something about you that you “hate” a guy who donated all of his inheritance to charity.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Oh, I agree with the Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He should have voted no on her.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
the Ruth Bader Ginsburg thing I mean to say; I also always worried that if McCain got to be President, he would put Warren Rudman on the Supreme Court, who would be just like Souter. He probably wouldn’t now because Rudman is getting older, but if he had won in 2000 he may very well have appointed someone like Rudman.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
You said: ““He was probably a better Mayor than having some extreme liberal in there.â€
It’s already in this thread 2 times, but now you force me to include it a 3rd time.
PROBABLY better? Than some EXTREME liberal?
October 25th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Metro:
“Clarence, with a few exceptions, he successfully negotiated with an 85-90% liberal Democratic council, getting his way on just about everything. And got more radical change than a GOP dominated government ever has. That probably makes him the top negotiator of all time.”
I’ve heard that Giuliani can be quite authoritarian. The same could be said of Romney.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Let me clarify here.
“Clarence, with a few exceptions, he successfully negotiated with an 85-90% liberal Democratic council, getting his way on just about everything. And got more radical change than a GOP dominated government ever has. That probably makes him the top negotiator of all time.”
That is what could be said of Romney.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
The response to #32 is the last sentence of #25:
“And Rudy accomplished far more in NYC than Romney did in MA, a change so huge it’s apparent to the naked eye.”
October 25th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
His two opponents, David Dinkins and Ruth Messenger, would be considered extremely liberal. I am not knowledgeable enough on NY City to use the word “definitely”, so I used the word “probably”. If that irritates you, too bad.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
The “probably” did not modify the degree of liberalness of his opponents. It modified YOUR ASSESSMENT of who would have been better in that office.
After he freaking REINVENTED NYC. All you can say is he was PROBABLY better than THEM?
Freaking hack.
October 25th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Metro,
Here’s one more who likes Romney and McCain. My top three as of right now are:
1) Romney
2) Hunter
3) McCain
After that, I don’t know who I’d put 4th. In my eyes, everyone else is in a muddled fight for the bottom of the pack. It’s a tribute to how far Rudy has fallen for me personally that McCain is even on that top 3 list.
October 25th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
He also trampled a lot on people’s civil liberties. He did some good, some bad.
October 25th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Metro,
Calm down will you, life is to short. Anytime someone says anything negative about Rudy you pull a nutty. Take five minutes to yourself will you? Obviously your not going to change Clarences mind on who he will vote for and he will not change yours so why take it so personal? You of all people should not be getting upset when something negative is said about Rudy, all you ever do is come on here and spout crap about Romney, your hatred for the man is obvious, yes you are brutally honest about the fact that you despise him . If your going to dish it out you better be willing to take it, I have news for you, Rudy isn’t the perfect person you paint him to be and Romney isn’t the despicable human being you want everyone to believe. If you want to be taken serious on this board you should be a tad more objective and stop the “Romney hate campaign” that you have employed.
October 25th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
How can ANYbody like McCain? McCain/Feingold did irreparable damage to our party. That alone should have resulted in his excommunication from our ranks. In 2000 he tried to enlist the MSM and independents to sabotage the party’s chances of regaining the presidency, and has entertained the idea of a party switch to run for VEEP. He’s sabotaged our judicial nomineees and our border enforcement, and worked with Democrats on far too many occasions to merit respect, or even tolerance.
My picks:
1) Romney
2) Giuliani
3) Fred
4) Everybody else I would vote for, EXCEPT McCain!
October 25th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Ray, you don’t get it. I have no problems with people voicing their negative views of Rudy. Saying something so outrageously false about his record is another story. And it doesn’t help YOU guys to gain any respect or credibility in doing so.
Would you say we were “probably” better off with Reagan than Carter?
October 25th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Dave makes a great point: McCain relished the thought of being KERRY’s running mate 3 years ago.
October 25th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I would never say:
Romney was “probably” a better capitalist than Ken Lay.
It was “probably” better to have Romney in charge of the Olympics rather than Ralph Nader.
What kind of political observer would I be to say such a thing?
October 25th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
“His two opponents, David Dinkins and Ruth Messenger, would be considered extremely liberal.”
Well, anywhere except New York City. Dinkins, in particular, was practically a moderate by NYC standards.
October 25th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
“How can ANYbody like McCain?”
‘Cos the guy was a POW for five years and even turned down an offer of freedom from the VC because he knew they would use his release as a propaganda tool. Seriously, how can you NOT like a guy like that?
Now, whether he is the best nominee is another matter, and I happen to believe he has mishandled his relationship with too many factions in the party for too long to be a viable general election candidate. But that being said, I have always liked the man, no matter how wrong I have thought he was on any particular issue.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Name one bad legislation (besides fiscal) where McCain would have vetoed! All of the worst legislation which Bush passed McCain has supported. If this man is in power then we are giving the Dems power to write whatever crop they want.
No, McCain would be a horrible general election candidate!
October 26th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Metro, this is all a matter of opinion. You might say Rudy was a better Mayor whereas Chuck Rangel would say Dinkins was a better Mayor.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
“Name one bad legislation (besides fiscal) where McCain would have vetoed!”
Well even I were concede your argument, that’s still a better track record than Dubya now, isn’t it?