The Candidates
A Freudian slip or was McCain, for a moment, on the real Straight Talk Express, proudly touting himself as a conservative…relative to fellow liberal GOP Senators Specter, Snowe and Collins?
Let’s just hope SNL gets to have a field day with these occasional brain farts over the next four years.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Truer words were never said, but the coverup continues.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
It may be true, but a moderate republican is the only kind that could win in 2008. I don’t care what anyone says, that is better for conservatism than simply conceding the White House to a borderline marxist like Obama.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
McCain had it right the first time. “Conservative liberal” describes pretty much the entire Republican Party these days. The words have lost their meaning, anyway.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Ditto #3
February 29th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
It was actually a twofer.
He also started out saying about his debate: “it will be dispirited, uh spirited…”.
Hehe. Maybe this is his strong suit. The sense that there is an honest guy deep down there, buried beneath the spinning pol.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
He did have it right the first time - conservative-liberal. I think it is fair to wonder what that means for the GOP. He has said he will select a running mate that shares his values so that rules out anyone fully conservative. Pawlenty fits the profile. So imagine we go Bush-McCain-Pawlenty. Wouldn’t that be the end of conservatism is we know it?
February 29th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I hate to agree with you Axel, but you do have it right this time.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Axel, as a supporter of a socialist why would you care about conservatism?
Haven’t you already crossed the Rubicon?
February 29th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Billary is the best option these days, and now she have to hate those ungraceful liberals anyway.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Did you guys hear that Hillary Supportys in the Legistor in FL is trying to past a law barring any Party who does not seat it Degalates at the Convention from being on the Prez Ballot in Nov.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Axel,
Enough with this already, McCain is a Conservative Republican! 85% ACU Rating, Deal with it my friend! McCain is our nominee, and he is a great nominee and a great Conservative that American’s can rally around, and will rally around come November. The man had a slip up, and recovered and said what he meant to say, no big deal, this was a worthless post IMO.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I think that when one listens to the context, the fact that he mixed the words up (and as Bryan #10 accurately noted, immediately recovered and corrected himself) - is not a Freudian slip, but the inevitable result of making a lot of speeches. It’s of no consequence …
February 29th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I think that when one listens to the context, the fact that he mixed the words up (and as Bryan #10 accurately noted, immediately recovered and corrected himself) - is not a Freudian slip, but the inevitable result of making a lot of speeches. It’s of no consequence …
February 29th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Bryan - McCain is not a Conservative but he is a Republican. Anyone can be a Republican but not everyone can be a conservative. This is why I will proudly vote 3rd party or withhold my vote from McCain on Nov 4th in this key swing state of NH. I will also continue to speak out against McCain to everyone I know.
It will be my pleasure to not vote for McCain as I can say for the rest of my life in 2008 I voted as a conservative and not lockstep with a party that is losing its way.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
#12 - yeah, because no one has ever corrected a Freudian slip before, eh?
February 29th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Bryan #11,
Great American? yes. Great Senator? maybe. Great Conservative? I am not convinced.
Isn’t this the same guy that fought tooth and nail against the Bush tax cuts? Isn’t this the same guy that torpedoed several conservative judicial appointments so that he and his gang-of-14 could thwart the will of the majority? Isn’t this the same guy that wanted to throw the rule of law out the window so that 12 Million criminals could have amnesty? Isn’t this the guy that pushed through a law that put a severe cramp on Freedom of Speech, and famously stated, “I would rather have clean Government than quote freedom of speech”? Isn’t this the guy who told bald-faced lies about his opponents so he could get elected?
Bryan, I am trying very hard to talk myself into voting for this person. By all means call him a conservative if you must, but kindly leave off the hyperbolic “great” stuff. It just rubs salt into old wounds that are slow to heal.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
His ifetime ACU rating is something like 82%, but his most recent one is closer to 60% - with a definite downward trend. At the current rate, he’ll be more liberal than conservative halfway through his term.
He may be a great American, he may be our nominee, but he is not conservative on campaign finance, immigration, the environment, etc. He has a mixed record on taxes, and, for all his smearing of Romney, his record on social issues is, if anything, worse.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Axel G. Is a troll. Is there actually anybody on this planet who claims to be a libertarian, and supports Obama because of his ecconomic policies, as I think Axel did. Is there anyone who went from suporting Thompson to happilly suporting Obama - well maybe there is, but it sure is strange. Of course Axel should have been banned for accusing EGS’s family of being terrorists and making ethnic slurs against the Iranians - oh well.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
17,I think He has a 0% voting record from NARAL, the only “flaw” on his abortion record, is his support ESCR, and CFR. I would say he’s good on the subject.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/feb/29/senate_shies_from_sanford_probe32212/
Well say go by the Dreams of VP Stanford. Even the hit of this crap if not true has to rule people out this year.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Ray, a vote for a third party is a serious move. You’re essentially saying “it’s better that Obama’s President than to have this sort of Republican (McCain) President”
I’m curious why you think McCain would be a worse President than Obama. I’m not criticizing you because I wouldn’t have voted for Giuliani but I’m curious about what important issues you have with McCain.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
John - McCain was, in the past, opposed to the repeal of Roe. There is a quote floating around someplace - I’m sure someone will post it.
EGS - I think there are a lot of people, who are Conservative, who don’t think Obama would be better, but would simply be easier to replace with a Conservative in four years. If the nominee was Clinton, I’d be on the fence, but Obama is much worse.
McCain seems likely to only serve one term - which is promising, but there is still that chance
February 29th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
…that we could be stuck with that RINO for eight.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Act, I believe Obama is so dangerous that it’s a massive risk to give him 4 years to damage our nation.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Ditto 24. I am terrified of Obama. He has people convinced that he is a centrist. If I could just take Hillary as president now, I’d do it rather than chance Obama.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
guys -
“If the nominee was Clinton, I’d be on the fence, but Obama is much worse.”
I agree with you. Obama is unacceptable. Hillary might be ok (or at least acceptable since she could be replaced in four years), but not Obama.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Clinton has shown herself to be incompentent as a leader given that her campaign has been a travesty. She hired her first campaign manager because she was latina and her decisionmaking, aside from when to cry, has been mistake-prone.
McCain is not much better having blown $40 million before the Iowa straw poll. If the conservative vote had not been canabalized by Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson McCain would not be the nominee. But my real concern about McCain is his age and health. Until recently I was an investor in a nursing home and most of the residents were about McCain’s age. Being 71 is one thing, being 71 and a twice survivor of cancer and a victim of torture is another. I would accept McCain as secretary of defense in a second, but not as president.
As for Obama. Yes it is rather a leap to go from Thompson to Obama, but I ruled Clinton out. Between McCain and Obama the only real difference is Iraq and, frankly, when the generals tell Obama that he can’t withdraw troops quickly he will follow their advice. What no one seems to pay attention to is his promise to listen to his generals. That is his out.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
When I hear illogical excuse like the above it makes me wonder how far we are from listening to an American version of turbo-folk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxz0jJz0aZM&NR=1
February 29th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
EGS - I am surprised you even have to ask about my concerns with McCain. I have made them abundantly clear on this site for months but let me give you the quick list without explanations because I don’t really have the time.
1. CFR
2. Amnesty
3. CFR
4. Amnesty
5. Cap & Trade
6. Bush Tax Cuts - “I won’t vote for tax cuts for the rich” –> democratic class warfare.
7. Gang of 14
8. Keating 5
9. Water-boarding (specific)/ Torture (in general)
10. Ignorance on the economy
11. Pissing on everything conservative since 2000
February 29th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
act-blog,
Did you just agree with yourself? Anyway, I agree both times. John McCain probably shouldn’t be considered a conservative, in the most serious sense of the word. But, Obama is such a threat to the union, it’s possible for me to consider sitting home. I don’t vote for folks who are to left of every nominee in the last 100 years save George McGovern. And I don’t stand by and watch them get elected either. Earlier during this cycle, I refused to condemn those who were pledging to stay home in November if McCain was the nominee. No more. It’s unconscionable for a conservative to willing allow Obama to become president of the United States.
Axel,
Precisely which health concerns do you have? The constitution has provisions for leaders who are incapacitated. There’s a line of succession. Even if you assume that McCain will die in office, or become incapacitated, your assumptions means that you’re effectively voting for the Vice President. Given that the Vice President will almost certainly not be a health risk, with almost certainly be more conservative then John McCain, and almost certainly have a reasonable level of experience, I’m at loss to understand how any conceivable outcome of a McCain presidency will give us someone worse then Obama. Worse case, both McCain and his VP die, the Democrats keep the House, and Nancy Pelosi becomes president. I’d still prefer Pelosi to Obama.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
it’s impossible for me to consider sitting home*
February 29th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Well Ray I’m just a bit surprised you think McCain would do more damage than Obama.
Conservatives who allow Obama to become President may regret that decision.
On the bright side Obama admitted in his book that he will probably disappoint most of his supporters. He’ll basically be Deval Patrick but with damage to national security thrown in.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Matthew - I generally agree with you on here but I don’t this time around. An Obama Presidency will galvanize conservative Republicans and Conservatives while a McCain presidency would just piss on conservative Republicans and Conservatives. A GOP President pushing liberal policies will marginalize conservative Republicans in Congress as they will all be told to “settle down” and follow the party’s leader’s lead (hmmm - sounds just like what I have been hearing during this campaign since the day after Super Tuesday). It will be much easier to get a REAL conservative elected in 2012 after an Obama presidency then it would after a McCain presidency. I also look forward to 2010 after Obama wins.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Ray that’s a big gamble.
It’s your vote and it’s your responsibility.
I believe the health of our nation depends on the leadership we have in the next 4 years. This time is especially crucial.
I actually believe an Obama Presidency could lead to a permanent weaker America. I’m not willing to risk that just so Republicans can take over what’s left of America after Obama.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Well, I am intending to vote for McCain come November. Obama would be far worse. But many more comments like Bryan’s about how “great” a Conservative he is, I just may change my mind. Let’s vote for McCain for what he is, not what he sells himself as being.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I just hope there are some generals in the military with balls during an obama presidency who will do covert ops behind his back and without his knowledge and they can keep this country safe despite the President. Luckily, Obama will be clueless enough for something like this to be effective. McCain would fire the entire Pentagon at the first whiff of Water-boarding.
And I would be fine with 4 years of Obama as President if he promises to be as effective as Patrick has been in Mass.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Ray,
Get over CFR. It doesn’t exist anyways, and never will. McCain is right that lobbyists have too much influence in Washington. It makes me sad when I think of what our schools could look like if there was no lobby from the teacher’s union.
Amnesty is the least of our concerns. How in the hell do you propose we round up and herd 12 million people. It is impractical. We have to live in the real world.
Cap and trade is the only real nightmare in McCain’s record.
Bush Tax cuts should have been met with spending increases. Our G spending as a % of GDP is a disaster when you consider we’ve had such an enemy of the left in the Oval Office for 8 years.
Your principles aren’t going to be worth a damn if Obama gets 8 years (and belive me, he will destroy Mitt or anyone else in 2012). McCain only has 4 years in him, and our country needs him more than ever right now.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I will be very interested to see the returns after 11/4. I hope someone pulls all of the votes garnered by GOP Congressmen and then compares that to the total votes received by nominee McCain. I think the disparity will be telling and reveal whether or not Juan was able to convince Conservatives to vote for him.
EGS - it may be a gamble but I care too much about conservatism to cast my vote for Sen McAmnesty. I am a Conservative first and Republican second. Conservatives will always get my vote while Republicans will have to be conservative to get my vote and in 2008 the top of the GOP ticket will not be conservative.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
# 36 Ray,
I’ll be hoping with you in that event, but I sure as hell won’t be banking on it.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
RayinNH,
Yes, yes I know the argument, but there are things that will conceivably happen in the next 4 years that simply can’t be undone. 4 years is well within the window for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. They will almost certainly do so on an Obama watch, given that he’s shown the most stunningly naive diplomatic outlook since Carter’s. That can’t be undone. The damage that Iran will do to world order with nuclear weapons is incalculable; the proliferating of AQ Khan will look tame in comparison. There are three liberals over 70 on the Supreme Court and David Souter is widely known to hate the job, but refuses to retire under Bush due to Bush v. Gore. If those 4 justices retire in the next 4 years, and at least two of them will if a liberal is elected, the window to overturn Roe v. Wade will have utterly vanished. The court will not touch a decision that’s approaching 50 years on the books (Rehnquist caved on Miranda far sooner), and it will be 2020 at least before any of the new liberal justices retire. These two issues alone are enough to send any serious to the polls.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Ray,
I am an American first. And honestly, that is part of being a conservative. The conservatives will be relegated to permanent minority status after 8 years of Obama. This country will have a European-style socialist government by 2016. Hard line conservatives will be stuck in green party status if they refuse to give in now.
It is the perfect storm. A time when we need realistic leadership, is the time when a hardline conservative couldn’t possibly win the office. So we have to make due.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
eric - I won’t forget about the things that matter to me and who the hell do you think you are to tell me to do so? Unlike you I have principles and I stick to them. As a matter of fact- why don’t we round the 12 million crimigrants up and deport them? If they were tax evaders, or drug dealers, or pimps or prostitutes we’d be rounding them all up. When did we decide that breaking some laws was okay?
February 29th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Ray, I believe you need to rethink this thing. NOBODY was more ticked at McCain for his dirty politics he pulled before Florida than I was. And I pretty much decided I could not vote for someone like that. He is far from being a conservative, and we all know it, and its an insult when some of you would like to pan him off as such. He has an average rating of 60 over the past 7 years, and didn’t get a rating last year because he missed to many votes.
However, when considering the choices we have, I think we need to vote for McCain, because Obama can do a huge amount of damage in 4 years. Forseeably, the more liberal judges could all hang up their cleats while Obama is in there which means we can wave good bye on very important social issues. I very much want McCain to put Mitt on the ticket because he will add a tremendous amount of conservative strength to the Presidency. But, even if he doesn’t I’ll have to hold my nose and vote for him, unless he puts Huckabee on; then I’d go 3rd party. He can only thumb his nose at me so many times before it becomes one too many. Huckabee VP would be the straw that broke the camels back for millions of us.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
eric - I am sick and tired of “making due” as you propose. I am sick and tired of holding my nose while voting. I am sick and tired of picking the lesser of two evils.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
IllinoisGuy,
I’m at the point where I’d vote for a McCain/Huckabee ticket to stop Obama. Heck, I’d even drag my body down to the polling station if Huckabee was on the TOP of the ticket. And I’ve been in the “won’t vote for any ticket with Huckabee” column since November. This stuff is deadly serious.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Illinoisguy - thank you for your plea and you’re well stated points but I will NOT be voting for McCain on 11/04 under any circumstances.
Matthew - those are 2 very good points you bring up but I refer you back to my #44. I will never again hold my nose while voting. I will hold my vote instead.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
RayinNH,
It seems to me that you have an unfair sense of entitlement here. John McCain was “selected” by party elites, or a back-room moderate establishment. Time was, when all Republican nominees were subject to these sort of forces. This time around, the Republican establishment largely went to bat AGAINST John McCain. Talk radio took a warhammer to his knees. Other then Crist, he received no game changing endorsements. He was out funded, out manned, and out organized. But, people voted for him anyway. Such is Democracy. For whatever reason, Republicans, and Republican leaning independents, felt John McCain should be our standard bearer. This time, the forces of moderation triumphed. Last time, the forces of conservatism triumphed. Bush, despite our misgivings about his presidency, was certainly “the conservative” in 2000. If you want better more conservative candidates, then you need a conservative movement that breeds these figures, and turns them into formidable candidates. That’s an institutional problem and it’s not something that’s altered by sitting on your hands and allowing Barack Obama to become president. I’ll also say that, even though John McCain triumphed, we were given every opportunity to defeat him. Republicans didn’t want McCain or Rudy, so they turned to Fred, but he disappointed. They didn’t want McCain or Rudy, so they turned to Huckabee, but he disappointed. They didn’t want McCain or Rudy, so they turned to Romney, but despite all of his resources, and all of his intelligence and experience, he ultimately disappointed. We could have beat him in NH and South Carolina; in Florida and Missouri; in Georgia and California. We didn’t. You’re now stuck choosing between the lesser of two evils not because of some nefarious world plot to give the GOP unsatisfactory nominees, but because, at the end of the day, all of our alternatives fell by the wayside. And, such is Democracy. We are, none of us, entitled to have candidates and elected officials that match our desires completely. But, we are, hopefully, capable of assimilating the central principles of our institutions; while we’re often left with a series of undesirable options, in the long run, everyone has their day in court. And sometimes, we have to make do with the choices left to us. I’m a blue state Republican, so perhaps this lesson comes more easily to me.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
RayinNH,
It seems to me that you have an sense of entitlement here. John McCain was NOT “selected” by party elites, or a back-room moderate establishment. Time was, when all Republican nominees were subject to these sort of forces. This time around, the Republican establishment largely went to bat AGAINST John McCain. Talk radio took a warhammer to his knees. Other then Crist, he received no game changing endorsements. He was out funded, out manned, and out organized. But, people voted for him anyway. Such is Democracy.
For whatever reason, Republicans, and Republican leaning independents, felt John McCain should be our standard bearer. This time, the forces of moderation triumphed. Last time, the forces of conservatism triumphed. Bush, despite our misgivings about his presidency, was certainly “the conservative” in 2000. If you want better more conservative candidates, then you need a conservative movement that breeds these figures, and turns them into formidable candidates. That’s an institutional problem and it’s not something that’s altered by sitting on your hands and allowing Barack Obama to become president. I’ll also say that, even though John McCain triumphed, we were given every opportunity to defeat him. Republicans didn’t want McCain or Rudy, so they turned to Fred, but he disappointed. They didn’t want McCain or Rudy, so they turned to Huckabee, but he disappointed. They didn’t want McCain or Rudy, so they turned to Romney, but despite all of his resources, and all of his intelligence and experience, he ultimately disappointed. We could have beat him in NH and South Carolina; in Florida and Missouri; in Georgia and California. We didn’t.
You’re now stuck choosing between the lesser of two evils not because of some nefarious world plot to give the GOP unsatisfactory nominees, but because, at the end of the day, all of our alternatives fell by the wayside. And, such is Democracy. We are, none of us, entitled to have candidates and elected officials that match our desires completely. But, we are, hopefully, capable of assimilating the central principles of our institutions; while we’re often left with a series of undesirable options, in the long run, everyone has their day in court. And sometimes, we have to make do with the choices left to us. I’m a blue state Republican, so perhaps this lesson comes more easily to me.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
RayinNH,
Fair enough. I’m not prepared to lose a city for unyielding principle though. It won’t be as rosy as Jericho. But, hey my inability to force you to do the right thing is a pretty fantastic virtue of democracy as well. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Who cares what McCain’s ratings from the ACU are?
I judge my candidates against the standard of the Constitution, not some arbitrary template that some organization decides it wants to impose.
And, judged against the standard of the Constitution, McCain gets an F-, by the way.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
The GOP needs to do two things:
1) Get Superdelegates - I know they are causing a fuss in the DNC primary right now, but the idea of giving the party some say as well as the voters is not a bad idea.
2) Require states that want their delegations seated meet three requirements:
a. delegates are selected at a caucus or primary - none of this state convention nonsense
b. delegates are alotted porportionally or in a porportional + bonus system,
c. primaries are closed, with deadlines to change registration no later than 100 days before the voting starts.
This would really insure that the nominee is Conservative. Independents have no business voting in a GOP primary to begin with, and conservatives generally outnumber moderates by something like 2-1. In addition, the porportional system would prevent liberal states like NY and NJ from putting a moderate on top.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Josiah - when are you Ron Paul loons going to crawl back into your holes for another 20 yr. sleep? Face it, you candidate lost. He lost because he would have pulled out of Iraq, left hundered of thousands to die at the hands of terrorists, and given those terrorists a new place to plan attacks. He would also have left our allies out in the cold in the face of a nuclear Iran (ex. Israel)
February 29th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Matthew - I respect your opinion and your articulateness in supporting your positions. However, I will not be voting for John McAmnesty on Nov 4th under ANY circumstances. This is my choice, and the choice of my wife, a strong majority of her family and a growing portion of my family. It is also the choice of many of my business associates (many of whom were hoping for a Rudy v Romney final battle at the convention). You all have the right to disagree with me and that is what is so beautiful about this great country we live in.
You can all blame me and my circle of influence when Juan loses NH to Barry.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Matt,
I would have been happy with Giuliani or Fred, ecstatic with Mitt, and would have held my nose while voting for Huckabee….I would pretty much have voted for any Republican with the nomination. The rub is that I don’t consider McCain to be a Republican. This is a man I have utterly despised for more than 20 years. Aside from putting Romney on the ticket, there isn’t any way that I could vote for him, despite the probability that he wouldn’t do as much damage to America as Obama would. On the other hand, the damage Obama would do would be an educational experience for the electorate that could pay major dividends in the future.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
All of you McCainocrats can at least be happy that I won’t be working against McCain in November. I’ll just not be voting for the President this time around. I will still be voting for my US Senator, US Congressman, Governor, state senators, and state representatives.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Dave - ditto almost everything you said. The only difference is that I won’t vote for McCain because I don’t consider him a conservative while there are many different types of Republicans. Unlike Brett Passmore, Billy Valentine, Mike Huckabee, Sam Switchback, and anyone who supports Mike Huckabee being pro-life isn’t the only test in being conservative.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Dave,
I’m a man of facts. As a result, I don’t allow myself to allow my tendency to “despise” certain individuals to influence my voting decisions. On the facts, for instance, McCain’s leagues better then Huckabee. It’s incoherent to refuse to vote for McCain, yet willingly consider Huckabee, because you “despise” the former. Presidents aren’t folks that hang around shooting the breeze with you over coffee (or some uncaffinated beverage in your case). They’re leaders, charged to handle certain civic functions, and while we all like to admire and respect our leaders, oddly enough, you won’t be any worse off if a president you “despise” stops Iran from acquiring nukes. You will, on the other hand, be a good deal worse off if the Obama destroys our economy, halts the advance of military technology, kisses Hugo Chavez’s ring, and invites every would be jihadi from Damascus to Baghdad to get the nukes while they’re “hot”. Even if Obama is eternally pleasant all the while.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Well, we just better hope with a President McAmnesty that the terrorists with those nukes don’t try walking in from Mexico because President McAmnesty will welcome them with open arms. And then, should be lucky enough to catch them - you know maybe a Border Agent does his/her job even though the President forbids them to do so - we better hope they are nice terrorists who tell us quickly where they’ve planted the bomb because we know that President McAmnesty doesn’t want us to hurt any of these nice terrorists who use kids, pregnant women, and retarded people to blow up innocent civilians.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Matt,
You always were one of my favorite bloggers on this site, so let me suggest that Huckabee does have a few saving graces that McCain doesn’t….foremost of which is his apparently sincere advocacy of the Fair Tax, which I have supported since its inception. Prior to that, I advocated a consumption tax as a replacement for most other taxes by the early ’90’s. I also have reason to believe that Huckabee is earnest about SoCon values, while it’s manifestly obvious to me that McCain could care less about them. The real problem with McCain is that if he advocates leftist initiatives as President, the rest of the party won’t oppose him as staunchly as it would oppose the same initiatives if proposed by Obama. BTW, do you really think McCain will stop acting like a Democrat just because he’s the President?
February 29th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Dave,
Other than your like of Huckabee thank you for saying exactly what I have been trying to say about McShamnesty and Obama all night long.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Its also rather weird to vote for someone who basically admits he’s a one-termer. Its as if becoming president is a vanity exercise like climbing a mountain. No one climbs a mountain to stay up there, but to just prove they can do it.
I think part of the problem is what Limbaugh said tonight, which is that McCain is not an ideologue. The only part of the conservative agenda he is passionate about is the war.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
..and spending. But the point is the same.
I too have problems voting for a man who seems likely to be a one-term President, for a couple reasons -
1) Its seems like a waste, he would be a lame duck from the start, and would have a hard time pushing a strong new agenda - particularly in the face of a hostile Congress.
2) He does the party no good - four years doesn’t usually create massive coattails, and it seems unlikely that he could lead the party into the future (considering his positions, that is a good thing, but the GOP needs a leader).
February 29th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
McShamnesty doesn’t care about the GWOT; all he cares about is proving that he was right about Iraq. McShamnesty is a pussy on the GWOT as all he cares about is being right on Iraq while protecting the terrorists that are trying to kill us at all costs.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Dave,
I think on most of the issues that matter, McCain isn’t much like a Democrat. Campaign finance reform is awful and violative, but it also accounts for about 1/1000th of the things a president is responsible for. Thus far, McCain’s shown no particular interest in socializing medicine, though he’s reflexively hostile to the pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the few Republicans to vote against the abysmal Medicare Part D, an enormous plus in my book. He’s been excellent on trade, solid on education and social security. These are the major domestic and economic challenges a president faces, and I suspect John McCain will be just as consistently “Republican” on these issues as Romney, Thompson, or Rudy. More in some cases (he’s better then Romney on trade in my opinion). He probably won’t stop acting like a Democrat on global warming, and plausibly not on immigration (though I do think he’ll secure the border before preceding to amnesty) and these are huge issues, don’t get me wrong. But, they’re still only a part of cast of issues a president faces.
And frankly, I think John McCain is overwhelmingly likely to become MORE conservative in office. He’s never been attacked by liberals or liberal organizations previously. I think his animosity towards conservatives tends to stem from the fact that they’ve been more immediately opposing him. Being attacked by the NYT and Democrats for the next 8 months might be the best thing to ever happen to John McCain; it’ll harden some of his conservative instincts, and that famous McCain temper will finally be turned against liberalism.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Matthew, I appreciate your words of wisdom, and marvel at your ability to express your thoughts so articulately. We can’t afford to have Obama as President, nor Hillary for that matter. I sincerely believe Romney on the ticket will not only help win this thing, but will help keep McCain more conservative in a variety of ways, and I think McCain is smart enough to give Mitt a good amount of say in the economy, and perhaps with world wide negotiation on trade and other important matters. This has absolutely 0% to do with Mitt being LDS, and everything to do with that he is the best man out there anywhere in the world for that job. I know that decision is McCain’s, but strong voices like yours may be heard by those that count most.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
IllinoisGuy,
I think Romney would have made a terrific president, and there are alot worse VP choices. But, while Romney probably cracks my top 5 for that position, he’s not at the very top of the list. I tend to think McCain needs to pick someone that says both “conservative” and “a different kind of Republican”. If Romney hadn’t left the race with such poor favorables, he’d fit both criteria. But, as it is, Romney doesn’t seem enough of an independent Republican to “mesh” with a McCain led ticket.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:01 am
Obviously, I disagree. Many, many polls, and exit polls showed Romney with very high favorables, not only within states, but nationally. For several of the candidates the same can be said. They were all over the place for all the main candidates, depending on what time frame, what state, etc.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:52 am
How McCain can win in ‘08
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
http://www.sacbee.com/110/v-print/story/748882.html
March 1st, 2008 at 9:13 am
Surely you are drinking kool aid if you think these brain malapropisms are going on for the next 4 years. McCain will be lucky if the country puts up with them for the next 4 MONTHS. McCain has more need for a fantastic VP than the VP has for him. Even with Romney, who I think would help him the most, they would be down 10-15 % after Denver’s Demo convention. And Romney would spend a lot of time explaining away what McCain said 4 years ago, and 4 months ago and 4 hours ago…..and Mccain will be annoyed because he will remember 4 years ago, but NOT 4 hours ago. And, of course the MSM will be in hysterics. Get real guys, patriot of not, this is an OLD GEEZER.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:03 am
Short of a really really terrible choice for VP - someone who has been linked to major scandal or corruption or the like, I don’t think the VP choice can turn off voters who are already supporting the top of the ticket.
Besides, if McCain picks anyone but a strong, traditional Conservative, there is a good chance the base won’t be motivated to turn out in huge numbers. Why should Conservatives vote for a guy who looks like he is trying to move the party to the left?
March 1st, 2008 at 10:08 am
I’m not surprised that JMac has slip-ups like this in public. Unlike Barry O, he has permitted total access to people and the press, preferring unscripted speaking with audience interaction to teleprompter speechifying.
Barry O and (until she lost the inevitability factor) Hill have both maintained tightly controlled access to themselves, never allowing for any kind of potential “YouTube moment” to occur.
As for the age issue, I assume many here to be quite young. (Forty’s creeping up on me this month: full disclosure.) People age very differently from one another. I’ve seen eighty-year-olds who could have passed for around sixty in terms of mental clarity and physical activity. I’ve seen sixty-year-olds who suffer from some old-age infirmity or another become wracked with frailty, senility, and confusion. JMac reminds me more of the former. To me, he looks younger than Fred Thompson who is nearly ten years his junior.
There’s been some chatter in popular psychology of late about how everyone has a “natural age” mentally. JMac gives me the impression that he feels like a thirty-five-year-old.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:24 am
MarkG - I completely disagree with you. I think McShamnesty looks very very old and he looks older and older as the campaign goes on. I realize his time as a POW and his cancers have affected his appearance but such is life. I don’t blame him for those things that happened to him but they have made him appear well beyond his years and physical appearance is very important to many voters especially if he is up against a vibrant, energetic, youthful looking Barry O.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:46 am
I agree that what really matters is preception (Romney, after all, looks like he is in his mid fifties, while Thompson looked closer to eighty - even though there ages are much closer), but I don’t think that plays into McCain’s favor. He looks old, sounds old, moves like an old man, and is a cancer survivor.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:52 am
The End of Republican ‘Fusionism’?
By Robert Tracinski
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/the_end_of_republican_fusionis.html
March 1st, 2008 at 11:54 am
Matt (45) If America did resisted 4 years of Jimmy Carter then for sure we could afford Obama.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:58 am
I’ve has live in Dominican Republic when Joaquin Balaguer was President with more than 90 years old and blind and I can assure you he was far better President than the two youngers that came after he left the presidency in 1996.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Eric (#2) Surprise! But the position of the moderate is not the same as it was 20 years ago. If we are to use the standard of a few decades ago, McCain’s voting record (since 2000) would be considered as Blue-dog Democrat. Yes, he’s now considered as “moderate Republican”, but he’s not one. Unfortunately, the country as whole has shifted toward left. The only those who cling to the correct positions of past are those you claimed to be conservative nutties.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
By the way, does anyone know where McCain is with his fund-raising for the month of Feb? I know Obama has raised over 50 millions, and Clinton over 30 millions. Has McCain broken his 10 million ceiling yet?
March 1st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
The due date for a monthly financing report is yesterday. That’s why I asked about McCain.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:18 pm
McCain won’t say how much he raised in Feb
John McCain’s campaign is declining to say how much money they raised in February, an indication that they’re worried about the stark contrast between their haul and that of their two Democratic rivals.
McCain is believed to have brought in $12 million for the month, but an aide declined to confirm that number.
“[We] will let you know on 3/20,” said communications director Jill Hazelbaker, referring to the day next month when the presidential candidates must disclose to the FEC how much they raised in February.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0208/McCain_wont_say_how_much_he_raised_in_Feb.html
March 1st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Ray,
I don’t like Huckabee, I was merely pointing out that I could hold my nose and vote for him. He’s terrible on taxes, immigration, and individual freedom.
March 1st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Matt,
I hope you’re right. My premise is that the only thing that has been keeping McCain somewhat to the right was the need to get re-elected by the Arizona electorate, and once freed from that constraint, as he would be in the presidency, he will show his statist colors. He might be good at fiscal restraint, and I can easily see him using the veto pen a lot more frequently than W has, but Cap and Trade, revisiting Kyoto, and further restrictions on free speech, such as his potential support for the fairness doctrine, are real nightmares for me. BTW, NOBODY is better on free trade than Romney. My dislike for McCain could be coloring my analysis of what he would be like as a president. I’ll wait and see how he handles the general and who he picks as VP, but I’m not optimistic.
March 1st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Dave,
Romney isn’t actually that great on trade. Much of his rhetoric veered off into protectionist territory, with his insistence that free trade also be “fair trade”. Granted, he didn’t mean fair trade in the same sense that Democrats mean it (where it’s attached to human rights conditions and the like), but it still signaled a willingness to abandon free trade that didn’t seem immediately beneficial to the United States. I thought it was a shrewd move politically, but I was bothered by the rhetoric policy-wise. As for the rest, McCain hasn’t had a remotely tough general election campaign since his first House election. He literally hasn’t been in a situation where Democrats, instead of Republicans, were in a serious position to torpedo his ambitions in over 20 years. It’s no wonder he’s friendly with them. Unless November is a waltz for the GOP for some reason (unlikely), I suspect John McCain will be markedly less friendly with Democrats by November 4th.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Aron, thanks!
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Matt, I usually agree with you, but I do think Romney is very good on trade. Everything I heard him say sounded like a complete free trader, but just not a stupid one like we’ve had in the past. He continually reminded us that its crucial to have someone negotiating trade agreements that understand the ramifications of certain wording within the agreements. I totally agree with him that free trade needs to be ‘fair’ to America, and what we’ve had in the past sure as heck has not been. The difference is that Mitt believes in ‘free trade’ but not at the peril of being ‘unfair’ to Americans and American workers.