Well, the time has come. I began my writing stint here at Race42008 as an undecided voter, and I hope that that has given some level of credibility to my past writings, in which I have taken shots at, and given kudos to, pretty much everyone in the field. But, for about the last month or so, I’ve noticed that I’ve been losing that neutrality. I think, for the sake of honesty with you the reader, I have to come out of the closet: I have decided to support John McCain for President.
This may come as a surprise. Those who have paid attention know that I’m a libertarian-leaning, Federalist Republican. I am pro-Choice, but I oppose Roe v. Wade and I think the states should decide. I oppose gun control because the constitution protects the right to gun ownership. I oppose “comprehensive immigration reform” – whatever that means – and I want the border fence built now and an employment verification system set up immediately. I believe in low taxes and oppose federal tax increases. I opposed the Iraq War, but support the Surge. I oppose the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. And, I think that the Patriot Act is mostly garbage.
I state my positions for the simple reason that they conflict with many of McCain’s. Many are probably wondering, “what’s a libertarian doing supporting McCain?” Fair question.
Here is why I’m supporting John McCain for President:
- He is a born leader, and the most experienced one available on either side of the isle. As his position on the Surge made obvious, McCain cares more about America than he does about himself, and he does what he believes must be done, no matter how unpopular it is. And, he’s usually right about these things: from the surge to pork-barrel spending by Republicans, McCain was the voice in the desert WELL BEFORE the rest of the party came around to his position.
- At the same time, McCain is flexible enough to get things done as President. He now supports securing the border FIRST, before any other immigration reform steps are taken. Why has he changed his position? Because he realized that Americans don’t trust the government to secure the border as part of a “package deal.” So, he has pledged to secure the border to earn the trust of ordinary Americans. McCain is smart enough to learn from his mistakes.
- He has been a diplomat, and made peace with the same country that tortured him for 5 years. Unlike virtually every other Republican, McCain would vastly improve our foreign policy and diplomatic efforts. And he would do so without selling out America like Hillary and Obama and Co.
- Because of his military service and his public service, McCain speaks with an unparelleled moral authority on the issues, both domestic and foreign.
- He would maintain or lower tax rates, and more importantly, would begin the hard work of trimming spending and shrinking government. Each candidate has a plan to do this, but only Giuliani and McCain actually have records that support their rhetoric.
- He is a Federalist. McCain correctly points out that the Republican, conservative, position on things like abortion and gay rights is not to have a blanket federal ban on these things, but rather to get the federal government out of the conversation, and leave these issues up to the states, so that the people can decide how they want to live and what their communities should be like.
- He is pro-life AND has a pro-life record. Even though I’m pro-Choice and even though I disagree with the so-called Social Conservative wing of our party on virtually everything, McCain is a great compromise candidate on this issue. He’s not going to go around alienating the center with fire and brimstone talk on abortion and stem cells. But, Social Conservatives can certainly be comfortable with the man that Sam Brownback endorsed for President, so SoCons are unlikely to bolt from the party when presented with a candidate who has been consistently pro-life for his entire 20+ year public career, and who would appoint strict constructionist judges.
- McCain will win the general election. He polls even with, or ahead of Clinton in national polls and performs better than Giuliani does against Clinton in most swing states. McCain puts some blue states like PA, OH, and MI into play in the general election – without jeopardizing the GOP’s southern flank and without the spectre of a pro-life 3rd-part candidacy.
John McCain is a candidate that virtually every Republican can get behind. He is good (or at least good enough) on all three prongs of the Reagan stool, and he can win. But, most importantly, he is the one person in this race with the experience, integrity, and courage to do the right things and make the hard choices for our future. You always know where he stands, and you know that he’ll keep taxes low, cut spending, appoint good judges, win in Iraq, and defend America.
I don’t agree with him on everything, but that doesn’t matter.
I AM PROUD TO SUPPORT JOHN McCAIN FOR PRESIDENT.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I should also add that I think we have an incredibe field of candidates this year, and I would be pleased to pull the lever for virtually any of them in the general election.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
A candidate that virtually every Republican can get behind? He has earned the ire of just about every type of Republican for turning traitor on the GOP at the worst moments.
He may care about America more than himself, but he cares about himself more than Republican principles. Those go out the door at any major opportunity he has to be preening on the Sunday morning talk shows, embracing the Democrats, as Mr. Bipartisan.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Arguments against McCain. He’s a legislator not an executive. He’s made too many comprises. He’s owes too many favors. He was wrong on campaign finance. He is wrong on immigration. He’s too old.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
As a fellow libertarian (libertarian hawk, that is), your list of reasons as to why a libertarian hawk would support McCain makes no sense to me.
Leader/flexible/diplomat? McCain’s version of those things is precisely what has caused him to turn on those things a libertarian is for. Caused him to earn the ire of the Club for Growth. Caused economic conservatives like myself to donate to the CfG to get this traitor to the GOP *out* of the Senate.
That leaves cultural issues, and as a libertarian, there’s little for you to support him on, there. (I do agree he, like Reagan and W., knows how to downplay social conservatism, vs. candidates like Romney, Brownback, etc, who make it offensive to the middle.)
Nothing in your bullet-point list explains how you can support this man without selling out your own libertarian principles, just as McCain sells out the GOP.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Good post. I agree totally. I’m pro-life but liberal on a number of issues. McCain is the only one who can hold the GOP coalition together and get enough independents. You can already see that Rudy will be both a divisive candidate and president. Our country doesn’t need another George W. Bush, especially one that has a proclivity in wearing a dress.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
On cultural issues, free speech would be a primary value of a libertarian, and McCain’s been the biggest threat to free speech in decades.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Michael, you just made Sampo’s head explode!
November 17th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
A candidate who cannot raise money, and who can’t properly manage the money he does raise, is shaky at best.
Also the fact that McCain was completely blinsided by Giuliani’s candidacy and unable to properly gauge the strength it would have is telling.
I keep thinking of how Giuliani took on the NY Times, Hillary, and MoveOn.Org with his own ad and commercial, while McCain was giving speeches in half filled high school gyms with a blow up copy of the MoveOn.Org ad in hi8s hand. Again, very telling.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Michael,
Welcome to the McCain camp!
McCain was (and still is) *the* strongest supporter of the surge even at a time that the war was wildly unpopular with both the general public and the media. Wartime requires courageous leadership. And there is no greater courage to be found amongst the Presidential candidates than Senator McCain’s.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
McCain nearly singlehandedly sabotaged Bush’s main domestic triumph, which is responsible for the current growth/resiliency of our economy.
Michael, are you working with some definition of libertarian that does not include economic conservatism?
November 17th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Hello, Michael-
You’d probably be interested in my site. I’ve posted the full text of your endorsement -
http://electionnighthq.com
Just click on the link above, you should have no trouble finding it…
November 17th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
#7. exactly.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Michael,
It’s good to have another McCain supporter here!
November 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
I agree with much of what you say about McCain and disagree with some other points, but my main area of separation here is his claim of electability.
He polls well in head to head matchups, and admittedly better than Giuliani at this point, but that is because Rudy’s primary strategy of setting himself up as the Democratic Party’s boogyman (a role they have embraced with lemming-like fervor) has by its very nature knocked down his support among independants. But in a general election matchup, I worry. McCain’s handling of CFR was a disaster and while I wholly concur this shouldn’t be a deal breaker, the fact that he was to politically tone deaf to see where his position was taking the party (right over a cliff) worries me. Another problem I have with McCain is his tendency to overpersonalize his political fights. A great example of this can be seen in this very primary campaign. Up until very recently, he has been targeting all his fire towards Romney and leaving Rudy pretty much off the hook. I’ve held my tonge (because Rudy is my #1 choice) but this was a completely stupid stragey. Rudy is McCain’s main obstacle to the nomination, not Romney, but McCain let his personal dislike of Romney cloud his political judgment.
Bottom line, McCain strikes me as a poor politician. Great man, great American, good senator, but poor politician. This was a very difficult choice, because I would very much prefer to have a President with his level of foreign policy experience and combat experience, and his support for the surge was a genuinely courageous political act. But Rudy is much more skilled politically, and I don’t think we can underestimate the importance of his skills. If McCain proves me wrong and shows enough political savvy to pull off the nomination, I will be proud to support him and campaign for him in the general. But right now there are too many red flags for me to justify voting for him again (I did back him in the 2000 Primary).
November 17th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Well, allow me to address the libertarian question.
Which candidates best fit a libertarian profile?
1. Paul. Ok, I like his idea of getting our hands out of the world in general, but I can’t vote for a man who’d withdraw the troops from Iraq immediately. We kicked that anthill. We’ve bought the ants. Plus, he’s pro-life, which is another knock.
2. Giuliani. Getting warmer. He’s good on tax cuts, spending retraint, and the Iraq War. He’s pro-choice but effectively pro-life for all it matters to the President. But, he’s a knucklehead like Bush on foreign policy in general, and, as far as I can tell, has no diplomatic, military, or foreign policy creditials of note. As those are the PRIMARY responsiblilities of a president, I find McCain more appealing, since he has all of those bona fides. I would be happy with Giuliani as our candidate, but I fear three things with him – Swiftboating, 3rd party candidacy, and him starting a war with Iran. Plus, he stikes me as a bit of an authoritarian.
3. Huckabee: Big Government SoCon. Enough said.
4. Romney: I’ve got no big problem with Romney. It’s just that he reminds me of another Massachusetts politician who could make up his mind(s).
5. Fred: Fred is awesome. He’s a federalist’s wet dream. But, he has the same or less experience than Obama or Edwards. This man is unqualified, particularly in a time of war.
That brings me to my major point. We have to have priorities. As I see it, the next president has a few major things he needs to address. They are:
1. The Iraq War
2. Immigration
3. Fiscal Responsiblity – which includes cutting spending, keeping taxes low, reforming Social Security and health care, and moving us into surplus so that we can begin paying down the national debt.
Those are the big ones. McCain is the BEST candidate on the War. He could be commander in chief today, ready to roll.
There is no one better than McCain on fiscal responsibility. Just like with the surge, he was pushing this when even Republicans thought, in Cheney’s famous words, “deficits don’t matter.” McCain is also the type of leader who has the courage to do the hard things to reform entitlements and health care, and he is the rare person who can actually get it done across the Isle. Many on this site would call that “selling out.” I guess you thought the same thing about Reagan when he reached out to Tip O’Neil to fix Social Security in 1983.
On immigration, he has acquiesced and has agreed that the border must be secured and that it must be done FIRST before any other steps are taken to address the immigration problem.
So, on the issues that I think are most pressing, and which require presidential leadership to fix soon, I think McCain is the best.
I don’t agree with him on everything, but I agree with him on the most important things, believe that he’s the best man to accomplish those 3 things compared to any other candidate.
Yes, as I said in my piece, I disagree with McCain on the First Amendment. But, I think it’s disingenuous to think that McCain only takes stands on issues that make him popular with the MSM. The SURGE negates that argument completely. Virtually nobody agreed with McCain on that, and he was right, and everybody came around to his way of thinking despite the media pressure against him.
At the end of the day, being a believer in libertarianism, you have to sell out if your vote is going to count. You have to pull the lever for an R or a D. I pull for R. McCain is the best, most qualified R to accomplish the things that I think need to be done in the next 4-8 years.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I guess the short way of saying that, as I pointed out in the main piece (”why is a libertarian supporting McCain?”) is that I am supporting McCain IN SPITE OF being a libertarian.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
” the same time, McCain is flexible enough to get things done as President. He now supports securing the border FIRST, before any other immigration reform steps are taken. Why has he changed his position? Because he realized that Americans don’t trust the government to secure the border as part of a “package deal.†So, he has pledged to secure the border to earn the trust of ordinary Americans. McCain is smart enough to learn from his mistakes.”
Sorry, McCain fought tooth and nail for his path to citizenship even after a ton of polls came out that said it was unpopular. Besides, even if he does believe in “securing the border first”, I still think he wants to make illegals citizens.
–
“He would maintain or lower tax rates, and more importantly, would begin the hard work of trimming spending and shrinking government. Each candidate has a plan to do this, but only Giuliani and McCain actually have records that support their rhetoric.”
You mean the same Giuliani who sued the government to keep his pork, sued NY to keep his commuter tax, and still left office with a deficit? You mean the same McCain who was opposed to the Bush tax cuts?
–
“He is a Federalist. McCain correctly points out that the Republican, conservative, position on things like abortion and gay rights is not to have a blanket federal ban on these things, but rather to get the federal government out of the conversation, and leave these issues up to the states, so that the people can decide how they want to live and what their communities should be like.”
Federalism is good where Frederalism works – and it doesn’t work with abortion. Also, I would put freedom above Federalism, and abortion is deffinately a violation of the “inalienable” right to life the men who founded this country talked about.
–
” Even though I’m pro-Choice and even though I disagree with the so-called Social Conservative wing of our party on virtually everything, McCain is a great compromise candidate on this issue.”
RIGHT, because saving innocent human life and maintaining and improving the strength of the family are deffinately things we want a “compromise” on.
–
“But, Social Conservatives can certainly be comfortable with the man that Sam Brownback endorsed for President”
If you had asked me two months ago, I would have said that Social Conservatives could deffinately be comfortable with the man Pat Roberston endorsed too – but we all know how that turned out, he sold out his endorsement to the candidate LEAST friendly to Social Conservatism.
–
I’ll support John McCain if he wins the nomination – but he is far from an ideal candidate. I’ll put him above Giuliani on my list of who to support, but he is still behind three other candidates. I’m just not convinced that a mavrick-turned-conservative, end-of-his-road, no-executive-experience politician is the best guy to set the direction of the GOP for the next 25 years.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I am almost entirely opposed to Mr. Lawrence’s ideology here. I think libertarianism is mostly rubbish and dangerous rubbish.
However I think it’s useful when we put forward conservative candidates like McCain or Reagan who can fool libertarians into voting for them. This time I think appealing to the few libertarians is horrid strategy given that Americans are taking a turn towards fiscal liberalism and isolationism.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Yeah, freedom is dangerous rubbish, econ grad stud.
Reagan should’ve driven you from this party.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
And you think McCain can “fool libertarians”? Well, Michael Lawrence is the only one I’ve found, and even he just told us he’s selling out his libertarianism to support McCain.
From my 20 years involved with economic conservatism, I know hundreds of libertarian/economic conservatives, and as far as I know, every single one hates John McCain.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Michael wrote: “I would be happy with Giuliani as our candidate, but I fear…him starting a war with Iran.”
Here are some recent quotes from McCain:
“I can say that we cannot allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. But I do believe that to start talking about specifics, a bombardment or something like that, I think would be a terrible mistake. In January of 1981, Ronald Reagan was sworn in, on that date, as president of the United States. On that day, the hostages came home from Tehran. Now, it’s not exactly comparable. But the Iranians would know when I’m president, they’re facing somebody who’s not going to let them have it. But I’m not going to make a lot of empty threats that I can’t carry out.”
“I’m not going to discuss tactics that could be used. But I would say, from my knowledge of warfare and this situation, you don’t have to take out all the facilities, okay? And I don’t want to say anything more about it because I think one of the most effective things you can do is not telegraph your punches.”
“At the end of the day, we cannot allow the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons.”
Michael,
Why are you of the belief that John ‘Bomb Bomb Iran’ McCain, who has declared “the only thing worse than bombing Iran is allowing Iran to get the bomb,” would not, as president, use necessary military force to destroy or severely damage the Iranian nuclear weapons program?
Do you disagree with McCain’s harsh rhetoric with respect to Russian president/czar Vladimir Putin?
McCain: “One of the things I would do is I wouldn’t invite him to the G8. I would treat him — start treating him for what he is — a person who is trying to revert the old Russian Empire, a person who is basically depriving Russian people of any opportunity of democratic process … So what I would I start treating him is as what he is — a totalitarian dictator who is bent on consolidation of power and countering the United States’ best efforts in many areas of the world, including Iran.”
November 17th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Metro, why should I care about whether you think I belong in the GOP? You have said if Rudolph William Louis Giuliani isn’t nominated you’ll bolt the party. You’re not exactly Mr. Loyal Republican.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I wanted to address the questions raised by Sean P (Comment #13). I think that his comment is articulate and that he raises valid points, but I must disagree with some of it. Obviously, you liked McCain enough to vote for him in 2000, and you noted that you would be proud to support him if he won the nomination, so I recognize that even though you are for Rudy you’re not writing your comment out of animosity toward McCain.
1) On whether Rudy or Romney is McCain’s biggest obstacle to the nomination:
Certainly, I agree that on a personal level, McCain’s friendship w/ Giuliani meant that McCain was going to go after Romney much more. It’s no secret that McCain and Mitt don’t like each other. But Mitt posed one huge obstacle that Rudy doesn’t – the ability to self-fund his campaign, stay in the race forever (or at least until he grows weary of spending his own money), and purchase early leads in the early-voting states. I don’t think it was entirely due to the personal animosity.
2) On the statement that “Bottom line, McCain strikes me as a poor politician. Great man, great American, good senator, but poor politician.”
Obviously, the definition of what a “good” or “poor” politician is, can vary. Is a good politician someone who is very successful at winning elections, but who is deficient in other respects? Is a good politician someone who works well with other politicians? Someone who can bond with voters? Someone who puts the nation’s good over his own?
At least in terms of winning elections, McCain has won more elections than any of the others. He won two House races (1982 and 1984) and four Senate races (1986, 1992, 1998, 2004) in Arizona. Moreover, other than his initial victory for the House, none of them have been difficult. In 1982, he had to win a four-way primary, in a state where he had never previously lived, against strong Republican opponents – that’s been his only tough election. The only election he’s ever lost was against GWB in 2000, when he was overwhelmed by W’s advantages in money, endorsements, and organization. Granted, Rudy won two mayoral elections (the second in a landslide) in NYC – as a Republican – and narrowly lost in his first try, so that’s a strong record as well. But Fred has won two elections. Mitt has won one election (albeit in the most Democratic state in the nation).
McCain has been in elected office for far longer than any of the others (granted, that could be interpreted as a negative, but it seems that he must be doing something right).
Of course, whether or not a candidate is successful at winning elections, might not be your definition of a good politician – it could be any of the other criteria I described above. As I said, it’s kind of in the eye of the beholder. (I personally don’t view whether a politician wins as the sole or even the primary criterion in evaluating whether they are “good”. To me, it’s a combination of all the others – attracting votes at the polls, being able to get things done with other politicians (especially if the public is against the idea), placing the city/state/nation’s interests above his/her own), intellect, etc. However, I think it’s fair to say that under those criteria, McCain fits all of those measures as well.
Just my humble opinion, of course… I’m curious to hear your thoughts…
PS – LJ and jme- since you’d probably be interested in my site (http://ElectionNightHQ.com) as well…
November 17th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Very good piece. I’m still trying to decide, finally, who to support and McCain is right in the thick of it. I think alot of things would be a great deal easier if Republicans could just abandon their seeming hatred of McCain, and I’ve seen signs, especially among fairly noted conservative commentators, that the haze of hatred is starting to lift. McCain is the most electable guy in this race. Period. That should be fairly obvious to anyone paying serious attention. He’s polling above Rudy, and won’t be forced to deal with tremendous baggage (Kerik, divorces, affairs, NYC, etc). He doesn’t run a serious risk of shutting down the coalition. It’s even possible to imagine a scenario where he could get away with picking Pawlenty for the bottom of the ticket, instead of the obligatory Southerner Rudy and Romney would need. Like I said, our party would be in much better shape if some very obstinate conservatives could realize some of McCain’s great qualities, both electorally, and as a conservative.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Michael Lawrence is a main poster?
November 17th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
TLG,
Yes, although I haven’t seen him post very often.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I pretty much agree with McCain’s positives described here so far. But there are two points that for me give up advantages in the general election, the current national polling notwithstanding.
One is that he’s from the Congress. Now, all the real Dem candidates are as well, so he lacks an advantage in a nation that has a much stronger history of passing over Congressmen when selecting the next Commander in Chief.
The other is that’s he’s from inside the Beltway. My sense is that the theme in ‘08 will give an advantage to someone who is not from within the current political establishment.
That said, he’s definitely someone I’d have no trouble voting for if he makes it to the general, even though I have some qualms about his ability to raise funds and keep his campaign organized.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
“On immigration, he has acquiesced and has agreed that the border must be secured and that it must be done FIRST before any other steps are taken to address the immigration problem.”
I guess this means simply that he knows how to pander to the base.
Securing the border first is a ludicrous notion – put out by unserious people who simply want to gin up emotional responses to the issue rather than solve the problem.
The core problem with immigration is that there is a disconnect between the needs of a robust, growing economyu for unskilled labor, and the available legal channels for providing that labor.
Most people are happy to support increased immigration (within reason) for scientists and engineers. There has never been much political support for increasing legal immigration for unskilled, or low skilled workers.
But of course, any growing economy needs far more of the latter than the former. And so the free-market works its magic and the unskilled workers manage to appear where they are needed, despite the lack of legal channels.
Its a terrible situation. We dont know who these people are, a security concern, and they drive down wages for the rest of us, since they are ripe for exploitation. Plus it undermines the rule of law, and forces the workers themselves to live in the shadows.
The first thing that needs to be done, obviously, is to establish legal channels for unskilled immigration sufficient to meet the needs of the economy. Meeting the labor needs of the economy should be the defining principle of any immigration policy. All immigrant workers would love to take advantage of a legal channel – they would be able to live normal lives, with equal rights as anyone else, and take their place in the honorable tradition of new immigrants becoming Americans.
Once their are sufficient legal channels for immigration, the problem of illegal immigration largely disappears. At that point, we can be pretty assured that the people trying to cross the desert borders will be people up to no good. Stopping them will be enormously easier, given the fact that all the people interested only in honest work (the overwhelmng majority of current border-crossers) will be going through the legal channels. Securin g the border then – as the second step, will be far easier that it is today.
The standard Republican approach – secure the border, clamp down on businesses hiring illegals – is deeply unserious. It will not happen, because once we are out of campaign mode, and responsible people actually start implementing policy, it becomes immediatly apparant that this approach is economic suicide. What do you people really think is going to happen to our agricultural, construction, food service industries etc. etc. if a large chunk of their lower-level workers are driven out, or the supply is cut off. Economic disaster.
This isssue is a prime example of the deeply unserious nature of the modern GOP.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
The standard Republican approach – secure the border, clamp down on businesses hiring illegals – is deeply unserious. It will not happen, because once we are out of campaign mode, and responsible people actually start implementing policy, it becomes immediatly apparant that this approach is economic suicide.
Well, once again, we must turn to morality.
Legal immigration should be unrestricted, barring background checks, of course.
We should take a hardline stance on illegal immigration, deporting every single illegal immigrant that we find and never allowing them back in.
That won’t happen, of course.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
MarkG is certainly correct when he points out that if there was ever a cycle that would favor an outside-the-Beltway candidacy, it would be this one (polls are indicating that the public is angrier with politicians than they’ve been since 1994). And McCain’s long tenure on Capitol Hill is a double-edged sword, with Mitt, Rudy and Huck all being decidedly outside the Beltway.
He’s also accurate in noting the poor track record for Senators and House members in presidential campaigns. Nobody since 1960 has been elected President directly from the Senate (and before JFK, you have to go all the way back to Warren Harding in 1920). Governors have on the whole been more successful in realizing White House dreams.
That having been said, since World War II, five former members of both chambers did eventually reach the big prize (the first President Bush, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Truman), even though JFK was the only one to do it directly. So it’s not impossible…
Finally, he raises the point that the Democrats, ironically, will almost certainly neutralize their own advantage in this area by the fact that all three of the major candidates are current or former Senators. Although Obama and Edwards can plausibly make the case that their short tenures there still mean they qualify as outsiders (Edwards served only one term and Obama has been there for less than three years).
November 17th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
econ grad stud, my point wasn’t about party loyalty. It’s about the fact that the GOP is fundamentally about liberty, which you call dangerous rubbish.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
“The standard Republican approach – secure the border, clamp down on businesses hiring illegals – is deeply unserious. It will not happen, because once we are out of campaign mode, and responsible people actually start implementing policy, it becomes immediatly apparant that this approach is economic suicide. What do you people really think is going to happen to our agricultural, construction, food service industries etc. etc. if a large chunk of their lower-level workers are driven out, or the supply is cut off. Economic disaster.”
In the short-term prices rise. In the long-term the jobs will be replaced by automation and innovation in technology. In previous times when the supply of cheap foreign labor was curtailed (after WWI) it caused industry to become more efficient in how it uses its unskilled workers and to use more skilled labor.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Election Night HQ Publisher – you have a great site. I’m already a regular reader. Your site reminds me of campaignia when it was at its best. I haven’t posted comments there yet because I’d be preaching to the choir. When I have more time in mid-December, I promise I’ll be more prolific in the blogosphere (may even get my own blog off the ground).
You can find me on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mccain08hq/
In fact I mentioned your site in one of my last posts I made on the yahoo group.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Michael,
Our philosophies of government seem to coincide to a large extent. A major functional difference is that you don’t trust Mitt, and I don’t trust McCain. If McCain were to be the nominee, I would go 3rd party. I would vote for any of our other candidates, and be enthusiastic about Romney or Giuliani. My preference is for Republicans.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
ElectionNightHQPublisher:
You pointed out some areas in my post where I was a little too brief
expressing my opinion, mainly because the post was a little overlong as it
was. To elaborate:
#1) Certainly in 2005 and early 2006 there were a lot of “experts” who felt that Romney was McCain’s biggest obstacle, not Rudy. Whether they were right or not, his decision to go after Romney during that time at least made tactical sense. But by the time Rudy officially entered the race in March (and his poll numbers briefly shot up to 40%) and certainly by the time Thompson came in and McCain’s campaign almost imploded over CFR, it was clear that Rudy was his main obstacle. Most of the voters who defected from McCain did so to Rudy, and McCain no longer had the $$ to compete with Romney in Iowa or Michegan. And yet he still focused his firepower on Romney until about a week or so ago. This was very foolish, in my opinion.
#2)I didn’t define politician very well did I? What I was getting at is his skills in campaign and his ability to persuade. And I think both skills are far more important than an executive than a legislaton. McCain has shown an ability to “get things done” in the Senate, but pressuring the Senate from the outside as President will require a different set of political skills.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
“However I think it’s useful when we put forward conservative candidates like McCain or Reagan who can fool libertarians into voting for them. This time I think appealing to the few libertarians is horrid strategy given that Americans are taking a turn towards fiscal liberalism and isolationism.” -egs
Reagan didn’t have to “fool” libertarians — he quite agreed with libertarian hawks on many issues and didn’t really do much at all for so-cons. If anything, you’re the one fooled by Reagan’s legacy.
The fact that Americans are turning toward fiscal liberalism and isolationism — and you are correct about that — makes it more imperative than ever that we run someone like Giuliani, who can put out a good, liberty-based message and hold an audience’s attention.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Does this so-called libertarian Michael Lawrence seriously support the man that brought the federal government into the steroid controversy in the MLB?
I mean, are you kidding me?
Has everyone totally forgotten that that was largely McCain’s doing?
November 17th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Metro:
“econ grad stud, my point wasn’t about party loyalty. It’s about the fact that the GOP is fundamentally about liberty, which you call dangerous rubbish.”
First it’s useful to examine the lie you’re passing off.
1) I didn’t say anything about freedom I only wrote about a political ideology called Libertarianism that makes various claims I find false and suggests policies I find dangerous.
2) The Republican party is about more than libertarian ideology. It has to be since libertarianism is a minority view.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
“2) The Republican party is about more than libertarian ideology. It has to be since libertarianism is a minority view.”
Most people don’t know what libertarianism is. There are plenty of people out there that would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative, socially tolerant.” People that would support pro-choice policies, civil unions, balancing the budget, free-market health care solutions, free trade, no surrender in Iraq.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
EGS,
It is not a question simply of prices rising. Thousands of small businesses, the backbone of our economy, would be driven out of business. Technological innovation, and automation will always be happening, but implementing those approaches tends to be available more to large, established companies. Your approach decimates the small businesses of America, and chokes off opportunity for new ones to emerge.
Why the impulse to rely on nativist instincts and the reluctance to rely on smart pragmatism?
A growing economy needs workers. You dont need to be an economic grad student to figure that out.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Tano the immigrant boom is causing long term problems as our population is rapidly increasing and our natural resource base isn’t. If our economy was growing endogenously I’d agree with you. Instead our economy is growing in an unsustainable way that will cause massive problems in the future.
Given the LFPR of young men it’s hardly accurate to say we have a shortage of unskilled labor. It’s more accurate to say that employers desire docile workers who can be abused instead of hiring Americans.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I’m very perplexed. The inability to raise and properly manage money is a deep flaw in a candidate. Discussing everything else is like decorating the rooms before the foundation of the building is down.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
EGS,
The decline in labor force participation by young men is due to their increased involvement in higher education – i.e. the thing that takes them ever further away from being unskilled. Perhaps your vision of an ideal society is that native-born American males lower their education levels and slot into unskilled work?
I find it odd that you think our economy is growing in an unsustainable manner. Maybe you can expand on that notion, but I think it is a dead-end argument.
I agree with you that employers desire docile workers who can be abused. My approach solves this problem by making sufficient numbers of workers legal. They can then organize to protect their rights, or move to different jobs if they are being abused.
The narrow interests of the business community is to maintain the status quo. The Republican approach is absurd and destructive to our economy. I dont see any sound argument against the approach I laid out.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
The decline in Labor Force participation rates is larger than the shift towards higher education. The effect is largest (but muddied by other factors) among African American males who’s LFPR and enrollment in college are both low and getting lower.
This view that our economy can not survive without continued unsustainable levels of immigration is asinine. We can’t even keep infrastructure stable let alone keep up with the growth in immigrants which drain the government of revenues.
I support securing the border to keep immigration at legal levels and starting a temporary worker program to wean businesses off of the cheap unskilled labor.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Sorry for your choice Michael. Any candidate who says the country needs more John Lynch’s will never get my vote in the primary or God-forbid in the general.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I would think true libertarianism / economic conversatism would care about two things. Lowering spending and not regulating so much. I really don’t think the tax cuts issue with McCain is that big a deal. Clearly his preference is to pay down the debt instead of lowering taxes. Why is that a problem? I can see why eco conservatives could have a problem with mccain on regulation. That to me seems like a much more legitimate claim. I’m tired of these people who wants huge tax cuts and want to leave my generate with a huge debt to pay. You might say, but tax cuts fuel economic growth! Well so does deficit reduction, in fact I’d argue deficit reduction does a better job of fueling economic growth.
November 17th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
EGS: Would it be fair to pigeon-hole you with so-called ordoliberals?
You seem rather opposed to the ideals of the free movement of capital and, at least, the free movement of labor. My impression is that you prefer a strong, actively regulatory government to laissez-faire thinking and, say, the bottom-up forces of creative destruction.
November 17th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Michael, do you know that McCain has taken the man-causing Global Warming scam to be true, and made it one of his priorities? There is nothing to kill our economy faster than letting those deceived environmentalists creating some Federal regulations (this definitely is not a Federalist stance!). And I am having a hard time accepting that he tried to do things in our best interest, especially when he tried to ram through the immigration bill without adequate time to review it. Are you sure he is your ideal candidate? I am asking because I want to give you a chance to prove me wrong (as in having misunderstood his stances or such).
November 17th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Someone’s black on this site, and I forget who. (egs mentioned African-Americans entering college.) Is it egs? Who is it? Gah.
November 17th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Wait, I just noticed this in the OP –
I oppose “comprehensive immigration reform†– whatever that means
I don’t know what it is, but whatever it is, I oppose it!
LOL.
November 17th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
“Michael, do you know that McCain has taken the man-causing Global Warming scam to be true, and made it one of his priorities? There is nothing to kill our economy faster than letting those deceived environmentalists creating some Federal regulations”
Thanks SGS for pointing out yet another enormous Republican blind spot. Another area where heads in the sand comes together with emotional appeals to the base.
It isnt just McCain of course. Anthropogenic global warming is real. Hell, even the Bush administration grudgingly admits it. You may wish to drive your party to ever deeper levels of irrelevancy, but in the real world the question is how we deal with it, not whether it exists.
Since you are so out of touch with the real question, it isnt surprising you are out of touch in your assessments of the solutions.
Green technology is the number one growth industry of the 21st century. And American business is finally separating themselves from the conservative deniers and getting in the game, big time. A little late, but our tech savvy probably insures that we can be players.
Of course, if we get ourselves another knuckle-dragging president, the world may well pass us by – like it is doing with our auto industry.
November 17th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
“This view that our economy can not survive without continued unsustainable levels of immigration is asinine.”
What on earth are you talking about. In what way is current immigration “unsustainable”?
It is an enormous problem because it is being done outside the law, but the numbers are not unsustainable in the least.
“We can’t even keep infrastructure stable…”
The problem with our infrastructure is caused by a generation of people who think that government should be drowned in a bathtub.
You seem to have such a profound lack of confidence in America. One could only imagine what a poorer country this would be if attitudes like yours had been dominant throughout our history!
November 17th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
#46 MarkG Says:
“EGS: Would it be fair to pigeon-hole you with so-called ordoliberals?”
Mostly. I favor competitive markets but I also see a role for government in maintaining order, fair competition and a social safety net.
“You seem rather opposed to the ideals of the free movement of capital and, at least, the free movement of labor.”
I think the free movement of capital is inevitable. Any attempt to regulate that is foolish. The free movement of labor I generally oppose.
“My impression is that you prefer a strong, actively regulatory government to laissez-faire thinking and, say, the bottom-up forces of creative destruction.”
Well, I think this is a bit of a mischaracterization. I favor abolishing the hundreds of agencies at the state and local agency that provide assistance for the poor/elderly and instead simply give the poor and elderly monthly payments associated with a negative income tax. I also support indexing the corporate capital gains tax to inflation.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Metro (#2)
McCain has taken an oath of office to serve the country, not the Republican party, to the best of his abilities. You may not agree with him, but he’s been pretty consistent in that. You should be more careful of who you call a “traitor.”
November 18th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Like how you call it “flexibility” instead of flip-floppiness. Why on earth would you support McCain now? Bless your heart.
November 18th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I’m glad to see that the post got people talking about McCain. Though, I’m unsurprised at how negative most of it is. I think McCain’s general election appeal is telling in so much as Tano appears to be one of his main defenders.
As I said, I don’t agree with McCain on everything. Find me someone in this race I agree with on everything, and I’ll be shocked. If you agree with someone in this race on everything, you may need to find and reboot your brain. I simply think that McCain is the best person to handle the 3 issues that I believe are of primary importance in the next 4-8 years. I can live with the rest of the McCain baggage. But, as I also said, I think Giuliani, Romney, and Fred are all fine alternatives who would bring serious minds to those issues as well.
TLG, my statement that I “oppose comprehensive immigration reform – whatever that means” was intended to reflect that I want the border secured before any further steps are taken – we have to learn the lesson from Reagan’s attempt to do the same thing.
November 18th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Tano, I am not saying that Global Warming is not true. I am saying that the part that men cause it is false. Environment used to be such a big deal for me. In fact, it was the main reason why I voted for Gore over Bush back in 2000. However, I have started to study this issue, like many others (remember my remarks about how I was not taught well in Maine about conservative principles and the Constitutions, the very same state where there is a school district or two that is distributing the birth controls to 11 years old girls without notifying the parents!). Because I had some the scientistic training and since environment was one of my top issues, it was the first thing I have tackled. So, sorry, Tano, but, yes, our planet is warming and as it has been cooling (and we were fearful of a new Ice Age in early 1970s), the same it has done for the past millions of years. The hockey stick scale has been proved to be false, many times over. The warmest years are in 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, not 2000s. The Warming is not causing more hurricanes, nor has the number of forest fire increased. While the Arctic glaciers are melting, the ice in Antarctica is increasing. Over 3/4 of polar bear colonies (what’s the right word, pack?) have either remained the same, or grown. And no, there is no consensus among the climatologists, but rather, the bureaucrats within the environment organizations, both within the governments throughout the world, and outside. Sorry, but based on facts as gathered by the scientists (again, not the bureaucrats) the men are not causing the planet to be a bit warmer, if that is what you can call an increase of .7 C on average. And it is not caused by carbon but rather, our own good heater, the sun. Good luck trying blame us for polluting the sun! Until then, I would urge you to study a bit more about it from the science perspective (not Al Gore, nor any Green freaks). Al deceived on me once, shame on me. He shall not deceive me twice, or fool be I!
November 18th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
[...] My Horse [...]
November 18th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
SGS,
I am a scientist. I can understand the difference between science and politics.
Global Warming is largely caused by humans.
Of course it is true that the Earth has been warmer and cooler over its history. The problem is not the change per se, but the rate of change. Historically, temperature changes happen slowly, over hundreds of thousands, if not milions of years (except for catasrophic events like meteor impacts which cause mass extinctions). The rate of change in current temperature is orders of magnitude faster than any natural process.
The hockey stick has not been “disproven”. Certain statistical techniques were questioned, answered, and whether you accpet the answers or not doesnt change the result in any significant way.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Its levels are increasing dramatically. There is no question about that. The oceans are a buffer that absorb excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere – and the resulting mix (carbonic acid) is changing the ph of the ocean in a manner very destructive to marine life. And the capacity of the sruface levels to act as such a buffer are being exhausted, which means atmospheric CO2 is going to go up even more in the future.
The variation of solar forcing is trivial relative to the temperature effect noticed on earth.
Your assertions about Antarctic ice are simply wrong.
Your claims about the scientific consensus are absurdly wrong.
It is good that you are interested in this issue. Perhaps you have listened to the popular accounts from the advocates. Perhaps you have listened to the few scientific skeptics. Have you actually read the views of the great majority of scientists who accept AGW? Not the Al Gores of the world, but the actual scientists?
Here is a start: http://www.realclimate.org/
November 20th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
[...] of race42008.com has decided on somebody he believes he can back, and is forthcoming about having a possible bias on his blog, I have read his blog many times and don’t think he will show much of any [...]
November 20th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
My biggest problem with McCain is I know him for his infamy more than for his good works. If not for his leadership skills – amnesty would not have gotten as far as it did, McCain – Feingold would likely of never happened. His leadership I will not question; nobody without excellent leadership skills could not have accomplished what he has.
I will also agree that the country needs a strong leader who can fight in a positive direction. I just not sure he will fight in the right direction.
http://www.at-the-water-cooler.com/blog/