GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Recently, I spoke with two Kerry voters from the Midwest who supported Hillary Clinton in the primary season this year. Both say they cannot support Barack Obama for president. Both agree that Obama is far too much of a leftist to be entrusted with the presidency. Both hate Bush for all the reasons that most Americans do, but both fear what Obama’s policies would do to our economy and our nation. Both agree that an Obama presidency would mean higher taxes, the end of quality health care in America, and fewer — that’s right, fewer — jobs.
But neither can commit to supporting McCain at this time either. The reason is surprising. McCain is viewed by these Hillary voters as about right on domestic issues. He’s broken from his party enough on laissez faire philosophy to the extent that Hillary voters trust that McCain wouldn’t take away their government programs. And his rocky relationship with the Religious Right leads Hillary voters to suspect that, while McCain is personally a cultural conservative who served his country and who has led a fairly normal life as a family man, the senator from Arizona won’t be attempting to use the state to legislate the values of a certain strain of Christianity on everyone else. The result is that Hillary voters seem to prefer McCain to Obama on domestic issues, an advantage which McCain can’t afford to lose with a foolish veep selection of a generic Republican who will be a drag on the ticket.
So why aren’t my Hillary-voting Democrat friends jumping on the McCain bandwagon? The reason starts and ends with one word: Iraq. Blue collar Democrats tend to have foreign policy views similar to Patrick J. Buchanan. They want a foreign policy that serves America’s interests. Full stop. Paragraph. To them, the Iraq project was never in America’s interest, and current polling demonstrates that most Americans still favor ending the occupation as soon as possible. Iraq is seen to these voters as a waste and a distraction. They want to end the war now.
A part of me wonders what would happen if McCain would do a full one-eighty on the war. He could hold a press conference and with righteous indignation attack the incompetence of the Bush Administration concerning the war and the refusal of a free Iraq to put aside ancient squabbles to come together in peace. He could also attack Iran and the other nations of the region for rooting for the failure of the Iraq project, leading to a myriad of deaths both American and Iraqi. Finally, he could call on the rest of the world to band together to help prevent a humanitarian crisis as the U.S. exits Mesopotamia over the course of his first year in office. In place of the current government of inept and corrupt leaders, McCain could propose the installation of a governing Iraqi council comprised of equal numbers of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. McCain could propose an alternative foreign policy of utilizing the resources freed from Iraq in an effort to eliminate the Islamist terrorist cells that exist throughout the world.
It’s just a thought. But perhaps it’s one worth thinking about. McCain definitely needs to continue to reinforce his image as a pragmatist on domestic issues who is something other than a generic Republican. But in order to actually convert Hillary voters, and not just get them to stay home in a race against Obama, McCain may have to remove his full Wilsonian jacket.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Leave Iraq in the first year?
What the hell is the point of electing McCain, if we are to have a leftist disaster like THAT?
DaveG, do you have any principles at all, or are you purely about power lust? Do you even GET John McCain?
May 7th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Are you kidding me? McCain’s real appeal and credibility are BASED on Iraq. If he says it’s a disaster and he’s going to leave, all Obama has to do is run 100 ads about how McCain was “100 years” one day and reversed the next.
Luckily, McCain is a man of real integrity who wouldn’t do a 180 just to gain power and actually BELIEVES in his policies.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
What on Earth would be the point of voting for McCain if he turns around on Iraq?
May 7th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
DaveG, I would erase this post before you really tarnish your reputation.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Gee, DaveG, I have an even better idea: let’s put Hillary on the ticket!
We’d get the Hillary voters for sure then!
May 7th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Alex, that’s a less absurd idea.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Yeah…. that might actually work.
Unlike DaveG’s proposal.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Dave,
In the interest of full disclosure, I will note that I am a hard core Buchananite in every respect except immigration (I support some form of amnesty). I have met Buchanan, have autographs from him, gave him a rosary, have every book he has ever written in the last 20 years, subscribe to the American Conservative (from the start of the publication) and well, you get the picture…..
While I think it would be foolhardy for McCain to call for a quick withdrawal in Iraq, I think it would be wise for him (like Huckabee) to let us know that we won’t be plunging us into any more preemptive wars any time soon, and that the NeoCons will have no sanctuary in his White House. But I’m guessing that’s too much to ask…..
May 7th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Alex,
“What on Earth would be the point of voting for McCain if he turns around on Iraq?”
Well, he’s not a baby killing socialist…..
May 7th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Seriously DaveG,
Why the hell would MCCAIN, remember this is freaking McCain, run against the war? He is, will be, and has been it’s staunchest supporter.
He has ran on the war, so why in the world would he do an about face to pick up some antsy democrats?
May 7th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
What the hell is the point of electing McCain, if we are to have a leftist disaster like THAT?
The implication is that it’s conservative to stay in Iraq. I’m not sure that’s the case. Nation building was a liberal view in 2000. That wasn’t so long ago. Yet now it’s a bedrock conservative principle. Throwing money into a bottomless pit isn’t particularly conservative either. Wilsonianism has far greater roots in the Democratic Party than in the GOP.
When I envision a conservative foreign policy, I think of one that advocates America’s interests in the world and that attains peace through strength. What we’re doing in Iraq does not necessarily further those goals.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I thought you so-cons didn’t trust McCain on judges, anyway..? In regard to “baby killing”?
May 7th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Alex,
I don’t completely trust McCain, but hopefully politically expediency will keep him from doing something completely stupid.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I think of one that advocates America’s interests in the world and that attains peace through strength.
So strength is handing Iraq back over to the extremists when we are finally succeeding there? Makes tons of sense.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Call me crazy, but I think if Americans really thought it about John McCain, in my opinion, will not be able to pursue any more wars in the Middle East for one reason–oil. Now I’m not proposing that regardless of the situation we should never engage Iran. But in the event of an escalation with Iran, I wouldn’t put it past oil speculators to push oil to $150-$175 barrel–thus effectively plunging the U.S. into a severe recession. If anyone has been watching CNBC lately, the traders on the floor feel the bull market right now and the slightest bit of bullish information is giving them an excuse to move it higher. Now perhaps the situation wouldn’t be one of not being able to afford their gas (many won’t be able to) but the psychological aspect of $5+ would be extremely damaging to the U.S. economy. For that reason I believe only in a situation of extreme imminent danger would we attack Iran.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
11 — So what you’re saying is that you would like John McCain to do a 180 on Iraq because you agree with that particular position. Not because it would help him win.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Dave,
You are absolutely right in #11. The neoCons have succesfully rebranded nation building and Wilsonian interventionsism (both of which conservatives used to scorn) as the litmus test of authentic conservatism. Many of today’s “conservatives” are yesterday’s liberals under a different flag.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
DaveG, you replied to the inessential. The essential is the disaster leaving Iraq would cause, not only in Iraq, but to America’s ability to ever discourage any potential enemy again. We’re already seen as a paper tiger for leaving the last few wars. I thought conservatives got this.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Alex #16:
No, I definitely think it would help him win. Has anyone looked at any polls on this subject recently?
May 7th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I believe that the United States has a near sacred committment to rebuilding Iraq and promoting democracy in the Middle East no matter what the cost. McCain’s foremost strong point is his committment to this goal and his understanding of the grave threat that Iran poses to the United States and that regime change in Iran and a democratic Iran should be our ultimate goal in the next 4 years. If Nominee McCain were to shrink from this solemn responsibilty (which I doubt he would) I and many others would regard it as treasonous.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
DaveG,
I agree with everyone here. This suggestion is utterly bizarre. John McCain has no ideological mooring whatsoever aside from his stance on Iraq. His great domestic concerns are related to issues so peripheral to the political scene, they’re of almost no interest to voters. Campaign finance reform, native American treaties, pork barrel spending, are not the hallmarks of a great political agenda. And immigration, his one major concern other then Iraq, can’t safely be campaigned on. If McCain genuflects on Iraq, not only does he fatally tarnish his straight-talking, “I’d rather lose an election, then lose my principles” image, but he literally removes the last vestige of ideological grounding. He becomes a maverick, without any crusades, and a man of principle, without any principles. I can’t think of a more fantastically awful idea from a practical perspective. I also dislike it from a policy perspective. I rather want to win in Iraq. If I’d wanted to lose, I’d be supporting Obama. He’ll do the job credibly enough. I’m not sure what’s been going on with you ideologically over the last year or so, but you seem to be increasingly prone to extreme pragmatism, to the point of ideological indifference. A year ago you were clamoring for Tim Pawlenty to be VP, a conservative who’s stylistically a moderate. Now you’re clamoring for folks like Ridge, Condi, etc; choices that very few people would label conservative. At some point, I think, you have to take a stand about these sorts of things. Pragmatism cannot be a successful supreme guiding philosophy.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Sorry, DaveG.
This suggestion is simply asinine. I hate to pile on…
May 7th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
DaveG,
You wrote: “current polling demonstrates that most Americans still favor ending the occupation as soon as possible. Iraq is seen to these voters as a waste and a distraction. They want to end the war now.”
According to the Rasmussen poll released yesterday, only 24 percent of Americans would like to see the troops come home immediately. That number has dropped two points over the past month.
The percentage of adults who think the troops should stay until the mission is complete has risen from 31% last month to 34% this month.
Echoing Metro and Alex, I would immediately abandon my support for McCain if he were to adopt the Democratic position of capitulation you propose. In fact, I’ll go a step further and say that in order for McCain to win in November, he must succeed not only in explaining why victory in Iraq is vital to our national security interests, but why, in order to achieve a successful outcome and end the killing of American soldiers, it will require us first confronting the threat at its source…inside Iran.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
No, I definitely think it would help him win. Has anyone looked at any polls on this subject recently?
OK, you know how I talk about principle and pragmatism sometimes?
Some people are too heavy on principle.
You’re too heavy on pragmatism.
We need to find a nice little balance in the middle.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
…and now I see that Matthew E. Miller already said that.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Questions for everyone:
1) If Hubert Humphrey had promised to remove American troops from Vietnam during the 1968 campaign, would Richard Nixon ever have become president?
2) Since Humphrey’s embrace of Johnson’s foreign policy led to Nixon’s election, which eventually led to the US leaving Vietnam anyway, wouldn’t voters who agreed with Humphrey on other issues have been better served by a Humphrey who joined public opinion on the war so that he could win the 1968 election? After all, Vietnam would’ve still ended the same way, only Hubert Humphrey, and not Richard Nixon, would’ve been signing and vetoing legislation from 1969-1973.
Think about that when Barack Obama is appointing the next Supreme Court Justice.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I’m closer to the neo-con side of the neo-con/realist divide. I think it’s indisputably the case that, prior to the ousting of Johnson, the Democratic Party was home to roughly as many “interventionists” as the Republican Party, and perhaps more. It is indeed true that neo-conservatism was largely driven in it’s early stages by cold-war liberals who were dismayed by the increasingly pacifistic elements of the Democratic Party. But, it’s also obviously true that, prior to really Reagan, the Republican Party was only a small blip to the right of the Democratic Party on fiscal issues.
Gerald Ford was big on cutting spending, but he also wanted to tax the rich. Nixon had even more abysmal economic policies, with wage and price controls and the like. Eisenhower forever entrenched the New Deal. It does not follow that simply because a policy preference was previously by the other party, it’s necessarily an unwelcome change, or one that’s antithetical to conservatism. I never saw anything particularly conservatism about isolationism, and I confess I see little more to recommend it’s replacement, “non-interventionism”. But, if I’m wrong, that I suppose I favor an ideologically liberal foreign policy. I can’t say I’m bothered by the label.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Aaron,
You hit the nail on the head. If 2008 is about Iran and the need for toppling Amidinijad then McCain wins in a landslide. I think that Senator McCain needs to be hammering home this issue everyday and talking about the grave threat that Iran poses to our nation. The people of Iran long for a representational democratic government but their totalitarian overlords prevent it. It is America’s duty to remove this undemocratic impediment and help Iran transition into the Western democratic fold. McCain understands that regime change in Iran is both a National security and humanitarian issue, liberating its citizens — he just needs to sell this to the electorate which will reward him with the presidency.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
What!!!!!!!!!?????????? Dave go to bed and sleep off whatever has come over you.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Well, Dave G. you have suceeded in bringing Knepper, and Metro and me together.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Do you have polling that supports that position JA?
I have a hard time believing Americans have much of an appetite for additional foreign conflicts…
May 7th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Think about that when Barack Obama is appointing the next Supreme Court Justice.
I’m not willing to elect someone over a single issue.
I simply would revert you back to my let-the-Democrats-mess-things-up-so-we-can-get-someone-good-in-later argument that I made during my temper tantrum phase of the McCain nomination process.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I don’t think DaveG gives a flying flip about McCain’s positions on this issues, except whether it helps him win or not.
Power for its own sake isn’t worth it. If laissez faire philosophy is unpopular, don’t change your principles, make the case for why your principles are the right ones. That’s what leadership is about. If you want to know why there is zero enthusiasm among the GOP, that’s it in a nutshell.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
ugadawg,
Speculators are also projecting oil could reach $200/barrel if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq; allowing Basra-area oil fields to fall into the hands of the Iranians.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I don’t think DaveG gives a flying flip about McCain’s positions on this issues, except whether it helps him win or not.
Seems that way. I’ve actually thought that for a while.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
#28-You are being ironic, right?
May 7th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
DaveG,
I think this is based on the false assumption that pivoting to the Democratic position on Iraq would help, not a generic Republican, but John McCain in particular. Do you not recall that poll last week, asking who voters trusted on the issues? Do you not recall that McCain scored like a +20 on Iraq, relative to a general Republican, and like +6 relative to Obama. McCain is absolutely the only Republican for whom abandoning support for the war would be a liability; because a great deal of his character, image, persona, campaign, etc, are invested in his position, and the actions that led to that position, and because the public has largely assimilated and, yes, accepted this position. They trust McCain on Iraq because they believe he’ll do the right thing on the issue, in large part because he’s been willing to fight against prevailing political headwinds to robustly advocate what he believes is the right position. John McCain is a manifestly unique politician in that, when he supports something unpopular, it serves as a confirmation of, rather then a dissolution of, his central campaign persona. To paraphrase Barack Obama, in an entirely different context, John McCain can no more disown Iraq then he can disown himself. They’re too intimately. As a long-time McCain-admirer, I would have expected to have a greater grasp on this element of McCain’s narrative.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
By the way, DaveG’s philosophy is what’s wrong with the GOP leadership in Congress as well. Where are John Boener and Roy Blunt out there on TV advocating the principles of limited government. Eric Cantor? hah. They are all just there for power.
DaveG, not to harp on it, but do you have some personal stake in seeing the GOP take power?
May 7th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
36 — He was addressing Aron Goldman’s post in 23.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
fair point…notice though I said “any more wars” implying additional conflicts to Iraq (although one could argue Iran is already involved with Iraq now–thats a whole other topic. I absolutely think you are correct that a withdrawal from Iraq probably sends it higher which would prevent even Obama from withdrawing troops.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
ugadawg,
I actually have been doing a fair amount of research on public opinion re Iran. What I have discovered is that there is quite a bit of education that needs to happen. Sen. McCain needs to educate the electorate on the threat that Iran currently poses to our nation and how we need to stabilize the Middle East, remove the threat that is Iran and rebuild and promote democracy throughout the region.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Notice how guys like Jeff Flake and John Shadegg and Mike Pence and Jeb Hensarling, people who actually advocate conservative principles, are marginilized to the Republican Study Commitee instead of being in positions of party leadership.
We are going to be in the wilderness for at least a couple more election cycles until we get some principled leadership at the top, most likely from Jindal or Palin.
The DaveGs of our party need to be purged, they are the kinds of people that made up the GOP country club blue blood Rockefeller party, before Reagan, when we were a permanent minority.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Here’s the thing, Principals with no winning is totally useless, and winning with no principals is totally useless. You need both winning and principals.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Can anyone explani Oregon’s voting to me? Am I right that voting in Oregon started May 1 and the ballot has to be either dropped off or received by mail by May 20?
So, close to 1/3 of the vote in Oregon will likely have taken place already.
I don’t know why Hillary is spending so much time there. It’s on the other side of the country. If I was her, I wouldn’t really campaign there at all. Spend all my time in WV and KY and run up30+ margins. Then, campaign heavy in Puerto Rico. Get all my hispanic supporters on board. She can rack up 500K there and win the popular vote which would change everything.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
This article appeared in today’s Daily Telegraph, a British paper:
John Bolton: US should bomb Iranian camps
John Bolton, America’s ex-ambassador to the United Nations, has called for US air strikes on Iranian camps where insurgents are trained for war in Iraq.
Mr Bolton said that striking Iran would represent a major step towards victory in Iraq. While he acknowledged that the risk of a hostile Iranian response harming American’s overseas interests existed, he said the damage inflicted by Tehran would be “far higher” if Washington took no action.
“This is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to show the Iranians we’re not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do,” he said. “Then the ball would be in Iran’s court to draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops.”
Mr Bolton, an influential former member of President George W Bush’s inner circle, dismissed as “dead wrong” reported British intelligence conclusions that the US military had overstated the support that Iran was providing to Iraqi fighters.
A US military spokesman revealed last week that the elite Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards had drafted in personnel from Lebanon’s Hizbollah to train fighters from Iraq’s Shia militias.
Colonel Donald Bacon, a spokesman for the coalition in Baghdad, said captured fighters had told interrogators that thousands of Iraqi fighters were undergoing training in the Islamic Republic.
The main camp is located near the town of Jalil Azad, near Tehran, according to coalition officials.
The capture of Qais Khazali, a major figure in the Shia insurgency alongside Ali Mussa Daqduq, a senior Lebanese Hizbollah guerilla, last year yielded a treasure trove of information on Hizbollah’s activities in Iraq.
“Ali Mussa Daqduq confirmed Lebanese Hizbollah were providing training to Iraqi Special Group members in Iran and that his role was to assess the quality of training and make recommendations on how the training could be improved,” said Col Bacon. “In this role, he travelled to Iraq on four occasions and was captured on his fourth trip.”
Five Britons kidnapped in Iraq are believed to have been put under the control of Quds Force agents after failed attempts to barter the men for Khazali and Daqduq’s freedom.
The importance of the Quds Force to stability in Iraq was demonstrated last week when a five-member Iraqi delegation was sent to Tehran to meet with its commander, General Ghassem Soleimani. The delegation was despatched by the Iraqi government to plead for an end to Iranian meddling in its enfeebled neighbour.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
I think the war in Iraq was a tragic mistake. However we don’t make that up by throwing away the sacrifices we’ve already made.
McCain needs to emphasize he’ll only keep troops there as long as we have Iraqi cooperation.
If the Iraqis fail to cooperate we should leave them to their own fate.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I think that John Bolton is making a lot of sense and he has the experience and jugement to back up his proposals and I would like to see McCain nominate him for Secretary of State or possibly as his running mate.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Many Hillary voters probably are anti-Iraq, but McCain can’t change his position now. He would look foolish, and he shouldn’t change just to pacify the voters anyway. I also resent the idea that you categorize pro-life voters as “wanting to legislate a strain of Christianity”. It has nothing to do with Christianity or religion. It has to do with the Constitution saying there is a right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The idea that a baby is not a life right before it’s born but is a life after is ludicrous.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
The Constitution doesn’t say that, Clarence…
May 7th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Excuse me, I should have said the Declaration of Independence.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Actually murder is legislated at the state level anyway. All we support is leaving the decision up to the states like it should be. At the state level I would support bans. I don’t appreciate our views being called “legislating a strand of Christianity”.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
It’s funny because many Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists have problems with most abortions.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I honestly don’t see how a person of any religion (except for Islamo-fascists) could support abortion.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Doug, I worry about this issue being too closely tied to the Evangelical movement. I think people like Robertson may have done more harm than good. They’ve set up this scenario where the pro-life cause is something strictly for Evangelicals and maybe a few conservative Catholics. Therefore, people who are Mainline Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, or even secular, think that they are supposed to be pro-choice because pro-life is only if you’re Evangelical. I wish we could separate the pro-life cause from Fundamentalist Christianity somehow. There are many secular reasons to support criminalizing abortion. I also think it’s ironic how liberals are pro-choice on that, but they want to regulate all kinds of other aspects of people’s lives. In most states, which party is it that pushes for seat belt laws, smoking bans, and most importantly high taxes? It’s not us.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Legislating a strand of Christianity? Even the candidate this cycle who was most tied to the religious right, Mike Huckabee, did not suggest passing a law requiring everybody to be his religion. He didn’t do anything close to that.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
And opposing gay marriage does not mean you’re legislating a strand of Christianity either. Two gay people can live together if they want. I just don’t think the government should recognize it. That isn’t legislating anything. That’s refusing to legislate something. If people are that anti-religion that they just want the most secular candidate, we shouldn’t even try to get their votes. There are plenty of other votes out there we can get.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
As far as this business of “we can’t be a generic Republican”. If we talk like that, we are no better than the triangulating Dick Morrises of the world. The Democrats can’t get elected as liberals because so few people agree with them that they have to call themselves “New Democrats” as Clinton did. They have to camouflage themselves in order to win. WE DON’T.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
55, I worried about Huckabee ( even though I’m very socially conservative) with his make the constitution a living breathing Christian document. As a member of a religous minority ( Seventh Day Adventist) that has a tradition of standing up for separation of church and state, a statement like that coming from an Evangelical was rather worrying.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
John Mark, I’ve always found that to be an interesting religion. They’ve done health studies on Seventh Day Adventists since they eat a very healthy diet. I’m sure you know that anyway. As far as Huckabee though, I don’t think any of the other pro-life candidates besides McCain (Romney, Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo, Brownback) had any desire to impose their religion on others.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
If America was European (thank God we aren’t), I could see Huckabee as head of a Christian Democrat party instead of being in a conservative party.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Jonathan, that is why I oppose third parties. I oppose things like the Unity ‘08 program which is now defunct. A two-party system is critical in order to keep us from being like Europe.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
I don’t even think Huckabee would have imposed his religion on others. My problems with him were on other issues. He seemed like a health-NAZI for one thing. The reminds me, in NH today, one of his supporters sponsored a bill to require the state government to pay for obese people to get their stomach stapled. It passed both the Senate and House, and our Democrat Governor is likely to sign this “bipartisan spending bill”.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Michael Medved had a great article a while ago on townhall.com that utterly destroyed the whole absurd notion of third parties.
Here it is: (I highly recommend this both for the curious and those who are thinking of voting third-party to protest against McCain.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/10/31/the_third_party_temptation_discredits_its_candidates_and_their_ideas
May 7th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Clarence,
Was Romney not calling for the proliferation of religion in the public square and vowing to fight against “this spreading secular religion”?
May 7th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Romney was protecting the free exercise thereof. Many secularists want to take “under God” out of the pledge of allegiance and do stuff like that.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
John McCain in one sentence:
“I would rather lose an election than lose a war.”
John McCain is not the kind of man that would ever consider such a thing as Dave has suggested for power’s sake alone. That is the kind of man he is, and that is why he has my enthusiastic support.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
I agree with you Kavon, but to play devil’s advocate for a second, a liberal could argue that they think the war is unwinnable anyway and therefore we should cut our losses. However, if McCain thinks the war is winnable, he shouldn’t compromise to win an election, obviously.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Also, you’ve said before that McCain should pick certain running mates who disagree with the party platform on certain issues. You say that McCain will live the four years anyway, and the Vice-Presidential position is basically meaningless. Therefore, since McCain himself supports staying in Iraq, would you support him picking Chuck Hagel as VP or some other anti-war person in order to reach out to moderate voters since a “generic Republican can’t win this year.” If not, then how come you’re unwilling to compromise on this issue but you’re angry when other people won’t compromise on other things and you call us single-issue voters when we’re not.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
66, My theory was that you told Dave G. to go post a blog to stir things up and get more trafic.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
“I would rather lose an election than lose a war.”
Honestly, this quote doesn’t even make sense.
Think about it.
If he loses the election, we’d lose the war with Obama, in his eyes…and he has to win the election for us to win the war in his eyes, right..? The quote implies that we would still win the war if he lost, because he stood on principle, like he’s going down valiantly for the good of the war effort. I know what he means, but it doesn’t make sense, if you actually break it down…
May 8th, 2008 at 12:01 am
70, You’re thinking too dep into it Alex.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:17 am
I really hate to be a troll, but this whole comment thread would be comical if it wasn’t so sad.
It reminds me of this fantastic article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18721308/mccain_resurrected/print
“Onward to Victory is the last great illusion the Republican Party has left to sell in this country, even to its own followers. They can’t sell fiscal responsibility, they can’t sell “values,” they can’t sell competence, they can’t sell small government, they can’t even sell the economy. All they have left to offer is this sad, dwindling, knee-jerk patriotism, a promise to keep selling world politics as a McHale’s Navy rerun to a Middle America that wants nothing to do with realizing the world has changed since 1946.
The lesson of the McCain campaign is that one should never underestimate America’s capacity for self-delusion. Balls-deep in one of the biggest foreign-policy catastrophes of all time, an arrogant military misadventure destined to make us infamous for a generation across a dozen cultures, minivan-driving suburban America is still waiting for Bill Holden to make it right by blowing up the Bridge on the River Kwai — and returning, tanned and handsome, to get the girl with a mouth full of cool one-liners.”
Sorry… carry on.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Clarence,
I was referring to Romney’s support for the expansion of, specifically, Nativity scenes in public squares.
Do you really believe Romney would be equally supportive of the Muslim community in their demand to have a crescent moon displayed outside every City Hall across America in recognition of Ramadan?
Would Romney seriously want every community to be forced to place a Wiccan pentagram alongside Baby Jesus?
May 8th, 2008 at 4:24 am
I think that DaveG is onto something with these Hillary supporters though. Maybe (and hopefuly) McCain will win enough of them over to add to the dwindling GOP “base” to win this year. Maybe he won’t. But the Iraq issue needs to be resolved in some way at some point. Either we win, and Iraq is stable enough or we withdraw and come home (I’m of the opinion that we still have to fight for the former). But this limbo is the single biggest thing that is hurting our party. It’s a big chunk of why there is just no enthusiasm. People feel like we’re just treading water. Lots of Republicans feel like we need to finish what we started but no one has a really good definitive answer of what the end game will look like.
Bush really fucked us. There’s no way around it. Because of him, the GOP cannot claim to be fiscally responsible. Or competant. Katrina was a PR disaster in that it killed the Republican image of good executive leadership. Even if you want to blame the state and local governments (Nagin and Blanco were no prizes in this - not by any stretch) - people expect more from their president in a time of crisis than watching him take guitar lessons with a stupid look on his face. What a buffoon!
The Iraq war has made things worse because we treaded water for all of 2005 while Bush was worried about Scooter Libby and never even bothered to engage the Democrats on the debate over Iraq. All the while Murtha was running his mouth. Basically what the last four years have taught me is that I fucked up and we all fucked up in 2000 by selecting a president with limited business experience, little intellectual curiosity and little else to recommend him except for his last name and the rantings of Rush Limbaugh. We should have went with McCain in 2000. Something tells me he would have been at least as competant in going after training camps in Afghanistan (one thing I continue to give Bush credit for). But maybe he would have been a little smarter in the run up to Iraq. Maybe he would have seen the “Intelligence” for what it was - wrong. I sure don’t think we’d be stuck with a president with 27 percent approval like we are now. I guess there is some hope in that the electorate seems to have made some sort of independent judgment this time instead of just listening to the loudmouth opinion leaders of the Right.
But our problems aren’t going away until Iraq goes away - however that happens. Unfortunately it looks like it’s not going to be later rather than sooner.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Aron, I’m not going to speak for Romney, but I would not mind a crescent moon or a Wiccan pentagram in public places if there were a sizable enough portion of people in a community who wanted that.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:01 am
And if McCain did a 180 on Iraq and won the election, he’d see a Killing Fields occur in that Nation that would make Cambodia look like a picnic.
Out of 6 million, 2 million died in the Killing Fields of Cambodia as a result of the slaughter of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot. There are 36 million people in Iraq. We’re looking at 5 to 10 million dead at the very least.
If that’s what these Blue Collar voters want, then I say it’s better that Obama wins the election, so it will be a Democrat who has the blood of 10 million Iraqis on his hands. Much like Jimmy Carter is to be blamed for the Cambodian Holocaust today.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Keep in mind, if McCain drops his support for the War in Iraq, which thankfully he’ll never do, but supposing he did, he’d lose an enormous amount of support from Pro-Defense Republicans and Military Vets and Active Duty. That’s the core of his support.
McCain on Domestic Policy is tolerable at best.
It’s his foreign policy views and support for the War in Iraq, that keeps a Pro-Defense Libertarian like me, in his pool of potential supporters.
He cuts off that link, what reason would someone like me continue to support him? Might as well vote for the Libertarian candidate, cause McCain pretty much sucks on domestic issues, and the Libertarian is much better on that front.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Clarence,
Therein lies the problem. By not accommodating the request of just a single member of a religious group, while endorsing specific religions in which there exists “a sizable enough portion of people in a community who wanted that” is a gross violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
I would also note that you’re flawed logic is eerily reminiscent of an unfortunate comment made by Romney, himself, in which he said, “…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.”
May 8th, 2008 at 8:21 am
As a Clinton supporter .. I WILL NEVER SUPPORT OBAMA, he is media made and at the GREAT risk of our great country
May 8th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Sometime around Christmas I spoke to a woman I used to work with. She is in her 50’s and a professional. Not surprisingly, she was pro-Clinton and got angry at even my suggestion that Obama might beat her. By chance I happen to speak to her yesterday about other stuff, but she mentioned that Obama had lost Indiana by just 2 points (I hadn’t heard the results). She added that it was time for Clinton to drop out.
I could not help but ask why she was no longer gungho for Clinton and she said, “that Bosnia story really bothered me.”
This is just one woman, but I know her and if she can switch I have no doubts that Obama will get Clinton’s voters.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Aron, what’s the big deal about having a nativity scene in public? Or even a crescent moon or whatever? What difference does it make?
May 8th, 2008 at 9:11 am
My guess is that the Clinton supports will be like the Romeny/Huckabee/Thompson supporters. After the first rush of anger at their candidate’s loss they will come around to voting for “the other”. Especially if things don’t improve. Gas is $3.85 outside Detroit today, food prices are going up when means discretionary spending is down. Add to that the fact the war is still going. These things are just too much for the average Democrat to turn their back on their party.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Aron, what’s the big deal about having a nativity scene in public? Or even a crescent moon or whatever? What difference does it make?
If it makes no difference, then what’s so important about getting the government involved in it?
May 8th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I am a registered independent voter and a minority myself. Basically, I dislike the far left and far right wings in either party. But I have to admit that I was a bit lean to Democratic, and still am.
But in the past couple months, Mr. Hope and his disgusting fans (should we all call them loonies, yes, Media, you are included!) totally turned me off. His arrogancy left a such bad taste in my mouth, and I’m not the only one in my friends’ circle!
Now he and his loonies can kiss my vote goodbye. Period.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:32 am
I don’t mind if public areas are available for religious groups to decorate during their holidays. That’s a fine custom.
However I don’t want the government in charge of that. The government has no authority on religious or Church matters.
The separation between Church and the government should be absolute.
The government has its area of authority and the Churches have their area of authority. Neither should interfere with the other.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Actually, my sense about those folks (and there are lots of them, I agree) is that judges are their big concern. Most people understand that whoever the president is, we’ll be in Iraq for a while.
If McCain came forward and promised to replace Stevens and Ginsberg (the two most likely justices to resign) with moderate-left choices, I think those folks would come over to him. So the question is, could he do that while still holding firm on his stated preferences for justices?
May 8th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I am an Hillery supporter that cannot vote for Obama. I am one of many that feel we are being booted out of the new democratic party. These voters will NOT come around to voting for Obama for any reason. The Republican party needs to understand who these voters are and try to appeal to them.
Now, could you please get Mrs. Rice’s photo off the bottom of the page and put her maybe somewhere in the middle? That would be a start.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Haha - he’s right. She’s only been at the bottom of the list because she was considered a longshot to even run and was never technically a “candidate”. Still though - it might look, uh, better if she was alphabetized like everyone else - or put into a totally different category.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Uh..I’m a she. See there, you people are different. Anyway, here is where a lot of ex-dems hang out.
http://www.savagepolitics.com
May 15th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
[…] week ago, I wrote this about Johnny Mac and Iraq: A part of me wonders what would happen if McCain would do a full […]