Super Tuesday: Defend McCain
February 1st, 2008 at 09:02am Mark Noonan
Ed Note: Super Tuesday is coming right at us. We’ve winnowed down the candidates to four who have a real shot at it - Romney and McCain for the GOP, Hillary and Obama for the Democrats. Through today, we’ll be posting a series of threads where the partisans for each can state their case. We’re starting out, in no particular order, with McCain:
Ok, you McCainiacs, here’s your chance - why is McCain best suited to be President? What does he bring that the other GOPers don’t have? Why would he fare better than the other GOPers against the Democrats?
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans
53 Comments
1. SEW | February 1st, 2008 at 9:16 am
Uh, because, uh…he’s less liberal than Obama or Billary?
2. Christopher Estep | February 1st, 2008 at 9:29 am
I realize I’m the opposite of a McCain supporter, but I’d just like to comment to those who are. McCain said he wants to be judged by the company he keeps. That’s why I put together a nice little photo gallery of them on the website in the link above.
3. westmich | February 1st, 2008 at 9:45 am
Christopher Estep isn’t a supporter of McCain? That’s funny, I thought those images went a long way to show that McCain reaches across the aisles to get things done. That he is capable of independent thought and not just tow the party line/talking points. That maybe he’ll work with congress in a truly partisan manner get things done. That maybe he’ll stand up to the extreme elements within the Republican party and bring it back towards the party of Reagan.
4. Diana Powe | February 1st, 2008 at 9:47 am
Senator John McCain…Democrat?
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html
5. Romney » Super Tues&hellip | February 1st, 2008 at 10:02 am
[…] Outside Austin, But Terribly Well Connected â Capitol Annex wrote an interesting post today on Super Tuesday: Defend McCainHere’s a quick excerptWe’ve winnowed down the candidates to four who have a real shot at it - Romney and McCain for the GOP, Hillary and Obama for the Democrats. […]
6. Jay | February 1st, 2008 at 10:04 am
I’m supporting McCain mainly because he seems to be the only one with the experience and broad appeal necessary to give the GOP a fighting chance in November.
I believe his stances on most core conservative issues are strong, it is clear to me that he decides on principle and by taking an objective look at the issues at hand.
This objectivity and ability to compromise will suit us well. The simple fact is that if a Republican is elected President (which is highly unlikely at any rate) he is going to face a bitter Democrat controlled Congress who once again will act based on the idea that the election was somehow stolen from them. With power in Congress likely to shift further in favor of the Democrats how can any one expect a strict conservative to be anything other then a lame duck for the entire presidency.
At least with someone like McCain we have a chance to make reasonably effective compromises with these people that will hopefully see at least some of what we want make it through. At least more so then what we would get if Hillary or Obama were President at any rate.
I like all of the GOP contenders they each have strengths and weaknesses, its just that by now it seems that McCain is the strongest and while their is still fighting to be done if we don’t unify behind a candidate soon we risk sliding into irrelevancy. And the idea that some GOP faithful out there would rather stay home and not vote for McCain should he win the nomination (thereby letting the liberals win and allowing them to forsake the gains and sacrifices made in the war on terror, raise taxes, as Bill Clinton said “slow the economy down”) just makes me sick.
Do you people want to allow a tax and spend liberal to be elected and paired with a tax and spend increasingly liberal congress that doesn’t believe in the ability of the American people to shape the destiny of our nation or do you people wish to have a fighting chance?
I’m going to fight, and I’m backing who is clearly becoming the strongest candidate in this race John McCain.
7. Retired Spook | February 1st, 2008 at 10:38 am
Rather than try to come up with a whole new answer, this is part of an email I sent to a couple other B4V regulars this morning:
8. Magnum Serpentine | February 1st, 2008 at 10:54 am
Because McCain is not controlled by the fundamentalist. Unlike Huck, McCain is a true republican and thinks independently.
Huck is so controlled by the fundamentalist that he was looking around for a phone, during the last debate, in order to see what the Fundamentalist wanted him to say when questioned.
9. Doug | February 1st, 2008 at 11:05 am
Magnum, Huck may have to look around for a phone at the debate because he’s not rich enough to have an earpiece like his more suave counterpart.
10. js | February 1st, 2008 at 11:08 am
There is too much taint on this one. While he might have a bright and shiny wrapper, his core is not where it should be.
11. Dasein Libsbane | February 1st, 2008 at 11:13 am
Spook,
How come I’m not on that email list?
While I whole-heartedly agree with your assessment of McCain, let me add this;
If it is your belief that McCain will appoint more Constitutionalist judges than Hillary, I’d have to ask from where you drew that conclusion? It is well reported that McCain assessed Alito as too conservative, and, given McCain’s predilection for ignoring the Senate’s responsibility to advise and consent, I am of the opinion that he would nominate centrist judges in an effort to “reach out.” Now, to our liberal friends here-abouts that sounds like a reasonable thing to do, but you and I know that any judge that does not adjudicate on sound constitutional principles is, by definition Activist. Don’t expect a Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Bork, Owen, Pickering or any other constructionist/Constitutionalist judge to be placed before the Senate in the next 4 years. This should be important to Liberals as well, their ability to champion unpopular or narrow ideology is predicated by a judiciary (and legislature) not hell-bent on silencing opposition. Liberals rarely vote in their own self-interest.
GWOT? Any Republican on the dais will do as well as McCain, and given his notorious temper and his penchant for over-reacting and his pettiness and his personal animus for conservatives do you honestly believe he can be trusted? The jihadists war against us will force any democrat to engage, Hillary said if attacked she would hunt down and punish the offenders; reactive rather than proactive, yes, but the President will be forced to engage in this war regardless of party affiliations.
I’ll be joining Ann Coulter campaigning for Hillary if McCain gets the nomination.
12. Aitch | February 1st, 2008 at 11:21 am
I would say that McCain has the best chance of winning out of the four. I just don’t think a black man, a woman, or a Mormon can get elected as President. His being a war hero will definitely push him over the top.
I think most people who vote for President are uninformed and usually vote based on emotion. Those who debate and analyze the issues as is done here and other political blogs probably make up only a tiny percentage of the electorate in a Presidential general election. A drawback inherent of a democracy is that you gain power by getting the most votes. So candidates will say or do anything to do just that.
I think McCain will choose Lieberman as his running mate to help make just enough Democrats feel better about voting for him.
So there’s my prediction - McCain/Lieberman in ‘08.
Regardless of who becomes President I’m sure I will soon enough find a reason to dislike them. Whether it’s them selling arms to Iran and then forgetting everything about anything, or lying through their teeth as they ask you to read their lips, or getting action in the Whitehouse and defending it by saying it depends on what your definition of the word ‘is’ is, and a litany of other things Presidents tend to do that irritate me.
13. Doug | February 1st, 2008 at 11:21 am
I’m no McCainiac, won’t be caucusing for him, but would rather have him as the nominee than Romney:
McCain’s favorable rating is much higher and unfavorable much lower. The fact that his unfavorable rating is bolstered mainly from fellow Republicans (rather than democrats) will mean he’ll have an amazingly easy time with Clinton in the General. Heck McCain would even pick off Washington state of all places.
McCain is the only candidate we have that would have actual coattails - by that I mean bring non-Republican voters to the point of pulling a lever for an “R” which could lead to them pulling a couple more levers for an “R”, especially if some Senate candidates and House candidates campaign with him.
Romney is an electoral college disaster, he’s already down by 20 in head-to-heads against Hillary in his own state, where he is well-known. The logic that when people know who he is, his head-to-head numbers will improve, is okay, but his ceiling is so low that he won’t win any blue states and will lose some red states. He leading the ticket could really spell disaster for the Senate candidates.
Contrary to the far right’s view, McCain is as conservative as Reagan ever was except on issues of the environment. Since the extremist anti-immgrant supporters like to say that Reagan would not support ‘amnesty’ today like he did then, I’ll say that Reagan would have had a more pragmatic approach to environmental issues in today’s world.
There is a huge debate even amongst Republicans about the federal debt and deficit. McCain was the one candidate who wanted to do something about that awhile ago, yet he gets filleted on this issue from the right.
Eventually a President is going to have to have the fortitude to deal with the growing debt and the huge out of control spending. While we have major concerns about McCain’s opposition to the 2001 tax cuts (Romney also did not support the 2003 tax cuts) we can easily argue that of all the Presidents we’ve had recently or in the future we can easily expect McCain to be the one that would be most likely to address the growing federal debt.
14. Timmy J. Rooter | February 1st, 2008 at 11:27 am
Aitch says, vote for McCain because Americans are ignorant racists, sexists, and religious bigots. Nice.
15. Choose.Life.Not.War | February 1st, 2008 at 11:28 am
All FOUR candidates are highly qualified for ONE simple reason….
THEY AINT BUSH !
I’m sure it’s no accident this blog went from “Blogs for Bush” to “Blogs for Victo[R]y”. NO BODY wants to be associated with that disaster.
Notice how the GOP candidates all call themselves “Reagan Conservatives” but never use “Bush conservative” to describe themselves.
But you asked about mccain. I personally dont care where a candidate (any candidate) stands on any issue, as long as their motives are genuine, honest and with the nation’s best interest in mind. If they are wrong, they need to accept the consequences. that’s all we can ever ask for in a political candidate. McCain has shown that he is no neocon robot. He’s FOR the war but for vastly different reasons than Bush is for it. He’s not as liked by liberals as many claim he is, but the perception is so, because conservatives think anyone who disagrees with them even by a margin of 0.00001% is a ‘Far-left Kook, MoveOn.org liberal”
oh well then, McCain is a liberal.
16. Doug | February 1st, 2008 at 11:28 am
McCain haters unite thread, that’s what this is supposed to be? If Ann Coulter was in my precinct caucus and tried to vote, she would be absolutely kicked out for lying on her Oath of being a Republican. She’s done….campaigning for Hillary…..that’s the equivalent of the American Al Qaeda publicly renouncing his citizenship.
McCain loved Justice Roberts and would pick judges just like him, his problem with Alito was that he didn’t think he could get him through because his baggage was a little more. It’s practicality.
Either way, Romney and McCain would get the same type of judges through the Senate, with Romney the Dems would still control the senate.
17. Timmy J. Rooter | February 1st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
“as long as their motives are genuine, honest and with the nation’s best interest in mind.”
So you’ll vote for an incompetent dullard?
You just discribed Jimmy Carter. How’d that work out for ya’?
18. searp | February 1st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
The single most important thing about a McCain nomination is that it represents a complete repudiation of Bush. No legacy. All of his people and cheerleaders out. A new direction for the country regardless of whether McCain wins or not.
That is why Coulter, Limbaugh, etc are in such a tizzy.
19. Choose.Life.Not.War | February 1st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
incompetent dullard?
You just described GEORGE W. BUSH. How’d that work out for ya’?
20. Dasein Libsbane | February 1st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Doug said, “his problem with Alito was that he didn’t think he could get him through because his baggage was a little more. It’s practicality.”
Then McCain would be wrong, wouldn’t he?
I hope you got that, Spook. It’s not about principle, or a moral compass, or doing what’s right no matter the personal cost; it’s about political calculations and appeasing the opposition.
21. abpierce | February 1st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
McCain: good question - why do I lean his way. Charges that “he has changed his position” doesn’t bother me - most people do when additional information is given, or situations change in current events, or ideas and values grow in maturity within us. That he is respected to a degree in many circles is better than being owned by one faction and disliked by two others (random numbers - just general, not specific). Who cares if he’s shaken hands with the “enemy” and worked with a Democrat. It’s needed to bring a conclusion. So what there is a compromise. I’m tired of the constant warfare of words and accusations within our American society. Do we just sit on two sides of a table and scream charges at each other? And mostly, I like him because he’s been tested and proven to develop character - steel, if you will - down in his core. His temper and frankness is fine. I like that he says what he sees. I like a long history of experience. These reasons are why I lean his way.
22. Retired Spook | February 1st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
How come I’m not on that email list?
Mostly because I don’t have your email address, Bane — something that could be easily corrected.
I disagree with you on McCain and Supreme Court Justices. Without the Gang of 14, Alito would likely not even have gotten an up or down vote.
given his notorious temper and his penchant for over-reacting and his pettiness and his personal animus for conservatives do you honestly believe he can be trusted?
No! Do you believe Hillary can be (trusted)?
I’ll be joining Ann Coulter campaigning for Hillary if McCain gets the nomination.
Sorry, I get physically ill just at the thought of the Clintons moving back into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
23. Rich | February 1st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I’m pretty sure this thread was for partisans to defend McCain, not for libs to be spouting off, so I’m just going to ignore you losers. On to the hardcore conservatives. What type of judge will get passed by the current Senate Dasein? After we lose a few more seats this year, what type of judge will be passed by the Senate? As I see it, if you feel McCain would go back on his word, it will most likely be a moot point unless you foresee some unexpected flood of Republican Senate seats. Some of you people are living in a fantasy land I’m afraid. As far as Ann Coulter backing Clinton give me a break. I teach inner city hooligans that have a better sense of judgement and more grown up thought processes than that. If you don’t get what you want are you going to hold your breath and stomp your feet also? Clinton reactive to attacks? Her first reaction will be to check the latest polling, followed by checking thirty focus groups, followed by talking to the Chinese. How was her reaction to her husband cheating on her? She swallowed her pride and did what was best for her political ambitions and personal wealth, and that is how she would “lead” today. You don’t trust McCain more than a person who uses different accents in different parts of the nation and doesn’t expect or care that anyone notices? I’m sorry but I know you’re an economic genius and you would rather have Clinton back in the white house when her husband is saying we need to slow down the economy to fight global warming? Seriously the McCain hatred is one of strangest phenomenon’s I’ve witnessed. Our front runner is a war hero with a lifetime 83% conservative rating (has the endorsement of Mrs. Reagan) that has been consistantly pro-life and strong on the war on terror. Yes he has his definite weaknesses on immigration, but the alternative is real amnesty and drivers licenses for illegals. Can you not see the positives? Think of this as a rebuilding year. The republican brand is damaged by years of propaganda. The deck is stacked against us. McCain is our only shot at winning. People just do not like Mitt Romney and if you think they do then please explain why he has to spend so much of his own money and is still losing to somone despised by the mouthpieces of the party? Look at it this way, McCain will only serve for four years and in that time we can fix the Republican brand, we can work for a Republican majority, and with a strong Vice President, we can have a huge leg up in 2012. Would you be willing to go with McCain if he takes a strong conservative VP, and if so, who would it be?
24. Choose.Life.Not.War | February 1st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Rich:
If your students are ‘hoolligans’, isn’t that a reflection on YOU ?
25. Dasein Libsbane | February 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Didn’t Byron York also have a similar article on the Gang of 14 recently? No matter, I’ve read the argument. I suggest Hugh Hewitt as additional reading on McCain and the Court.
emphasis added.
26. StopJohnLiberalMcCain | February 1st, 2008 at 1:06 pm
There is no defense of JohnLiberalMcCain. Anyone who defends him is a traitor to the Republic.
27. Choose.Life.Not.War | February 1st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
There is no defense of JohnLiberalMcCain. Anyone who defends him is a traitor to the Dictatorship !
fixxy!
28. Dasein Libsbane | February 1st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Rich,
Obviously choose has never been a teacher.
I hear what you’re saying; now here’s my answer.
What type of judges will Hillary send to the Senate? The same as McCain, on that I have no doubt, McCain has no respect for the judiciary and Hillary will send activist judges for confirmation; Net Clinton-McCain; same-same.
Stamping my feet and holding my breath? I am actively campaigning for Romney; my decision to go to Romney was made after Florida when McCain played the Clinton politics of personal destruction card by twisting Romney’s words to imply something 180º from his position, dishonest and dishonorable. Net Clinton-McCain; same-same.
Will Clinton react to an attack against the US? History has shown that she voted for the AUMF as did McCain, Hillary called for more troops during the initial invasion, as did McCain, and when asked, she was the only democrat that responded that she would pursue the evil-doers, as did McCain, Net Clinton-McCain; same-same.
McCain opposed the Bush tax rate cuts because he said it was tax cuts for the rich; so did Hillary.
Clinton said we need an economic slowdown to combat global warming; McCain is pushing McCain-Lieberman which will do permanent damage to the economy, Net Clinton-McCain; advantage Clinton.
McCain has never given up on amnesty for illegals, neither has Clinton. Net Clinton-McCain; same-same
McCain may be your one shot at winning; not mine.
Someone posted a few days ago that they will vote against every Republican simply because they’re Republicans. I don’t think Americans are that insipid; if McCain gets the nomination he’ll lose like Ford and Dole did.
If, by some happenstance he wins; well, remember Clinton in 1994? Decimated his party, lost Congress, state legislatures and sent democrats into the wilderness for 12 years, only to come back by the graces of the looniest of the left? How on earth do you see a different scenario for a McCain presidency than a complete repudiation of all things conservative?
Some have been fooled, I refuse to jump over that cliff.
29. Joe | February 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
The number of anti-McCain on this GOP blog is astounding. This is REALLY going to be interesting come November.
Don’t you people believe in the “Governator” and his endorsement???
30. Sunny | February 1st, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Choose.Life.Not.War | February 1st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Rich:
If your students are ‘hoolligans’, isn’t that a reflection on YOU ?
Choose, since when is it the responsiblity of a teacher to be a parent? It is the parents that have failed their children, not the teachers who are trying to deal with teaching while kids are totally out of control. This is not a reflection on anyone but the parents.
31. Rich | February 1st, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Choose- I go through two metal detectors on the way to the classroom, they were there before I taught, they will be there long after I leave. Grow up. I thought maybe I would have some students that were interested in changing their lots in life, instead I have students that don’t just watch the culture of sex and violence on tv, they revel in it. The Chicago Public School system should be shut down.
Dasain- We are just going to have to agree to disagree on these issues.
McCains initial judges would most like start conservative and after being blocked by a Dem majority, slide towards more moderate. Where do you think Clinton’s judges would fit on that scale? I would guess moderate would not even come close to describing her judges. So we have moderate with McCain, far left judges with Clinton. Hardly same same.
As far as going for Romney, good for you. I will support him if he wins the nomination, but I don’t see him winning in any scenario. Talk about being lost in the woods for a generation, hows about eight years of Clinton followed by eight years of Obama? I fear that is what will happen with a Romney nomination. As far as twisting an opponents words, somehow that doesn’t seem like the first time that has happened in American politics. Don’t forget Romney has placed the most attack adds of the campaign.
Tax cuts- McCain has said he would keep them, Clinton will get rid of them. Do you think she might come up with a few more as President? How much has McCain spent in earmarks in decades in the senate compared to Clinton? Zero to around six hundred million. McCain has also said he will trim the budget. I wonder how much Unviersal health care will cost? Hardly same same.
Global warming crap- McCain Lieberman doesnt do much, lefties say it is only window dressing. I’m no expert, I just know lefties hate it. They will demand much more from a president Clinton, and she will oblige. Hardly same same.
Amnesty- I don’t like McCain’s initial position on this, but he has claimed to come around. If you can believe Romney changed his mind on abortion, you should be able to believe McCain changed his mind on amnesty. If you don’t like McCain’s position, will you really like Clinton’s more? How about Obama’s? Definitely not same same.
Back to Romney- Any clue which blue states Romney picks up? I can’t see any. Which red states does he lose? Well lets start with Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Ohio. I don’t need to go on. Maybe a huge conservative movement will sweep him up and carry him into the Presidency, but where has it been up until now? Why is he spending so much of his own money?
To sum it all up, a McCain and Clinton presidency would hardly be the same, and I think you staunch conservatives know it. Throwing your support behind Hillary to spite McCain is really incomprehensible and I hope it is just sour grapes at the moment. We will see after the primaries are done.
32. Doug | February 1st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Romney v. Clinton:
Likely red state losses: Virginia, Ohio, New Mexico, Missouri, Iowa,
Potential red state losses: Florida.
Potential blue state gains: Michigan, Wisconsin
McCain v. Clinton:
No likely red state losses.
Potential Red state losses: Missouri, Iowa
Likely Blue state gains: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire
Potential Blue state gains: Washington, Oregon
33. Dasein Libsbane | February 1st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
“Don’t forget Romney has placed the most attack adds of the campaign.”
… attacking policy, not personal. And just because everybody does it (twisting words) doesn’t mean we should condone it; we have to stand for something or we stand for nothing.
McCain wouldn’t have sent Alito up for confirmation, he’s made that clear. What makes you believe now he would send any nominee that might be opposed by his liberal friends?
McCain hasn’t changed his mind on amnesty, listen carefully to the debates; after his usual “I heard” statement always comes the “we must have a path to citizenship” speech.
“Romney spending his own money” is yet another Clintonian class-warfare tactict. Romney had raised more than McCain and I didn’t hear one peep that he was the popular choice. Romney spends his own money because he believes in his cause. Money he earned, btw, he didn’t marry rich like McCain. See, class warfare is unfair and counterproductive.
By the way, singer/songwriter Jim Croce quit his job as a schoolteacher when a student in his Chicago classroom threw him out of a window; or so the story goes.
34. Doug | February 1st, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Dasein,
McCain and judges, His support for the Roberts type was great, for Alito, McCain didn’t want someone who was outward with his conservativeness in a way that was politicing (sort of like Scalia is now that he is on the bench - don’t get me wrong, after Thomas, Scalia is my most favorite of the bunch).
Romney’s position right now, verbally, is the same position McCain’s is right now verbally. Romney has recently alluded to to documenting illegals in much the same manner, but only after building the wall so to say. They both will solve the problem in the same exact way.
Romney raised less money than McCain in the 4th quarter of 2007 and likely has raised less than McCain this month. Romney spent $35 million of his own money before 2008 even started, imagine how much more he has had to spend since then. That’s a lot of dough in an attempt to portray himself as the frontrunner in the early states - and thereby trying to get front-runner donations coming in.
35. Ricorun | February 1st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Dasein: By the way, singer/songwriter Jim Croce quit his job as a schoolteacher when a student in his Chicago classroom threw him out of a window; or so the story goes.
Damn, it seems he had something of a habit of falling out of the sky. Perhaps he should have considered a parachute as a standard wardrobe accessory.
Anyway, you’ve convinced me on McCain — I’m voting for Hillary!
Excuse me, I think I need to go wash my mouth out with soap…
Okay, I’m back.
I’m sorry, I can’t do it. In fact, I think McCain is just fine. I’m concerned about his temper, but I do like his stand on earmarks and bloated budgets. I’m not a big fan of the McC/Lieberman act because it relies too much on carbon trading. But I do think climate change is a serious problem. And I’d like someone that’s pro-business in a position to do something about it rather than one that isn’t. I didn’t have a problem with the illegal immigration bill Bush et. al. put together. Something like that is going to have to happen eventually. Moreover, I think he’s the only GOPer that has a chance of garnering a decent proportion of the Hispanic vote — which is likely to be important in potential swing states like Nevada, New Mexico, Florida, and Colorado. I think he’ll to the right thing in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world.
As for judges, you say, “The GOP was poised to win a crucial round in the battle for the integrity of the courts and the restoration of sanity in the confirmation process. The GOP was about to strike a lasting blow for the rule of law. John McCain blew that up.” Well if that’s the case, if think what he helped to prevent was good for the GOP, wouldn’t it be equally good for the Dems if and when they win the White House?
And that’s another thing… unless a miracle occurred between now and November, I think Romney would have a much more difficult time winning the general.
36. Dasein Libsbane | February 1st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Doug,
Romney and McCain have stated positions regarding judges; Romney has given no indication that he is unreliable, McCain has.
Romney has proffered a “solve by attrition” method for dealing with illegal immigration, and I agree that he would garner less support from the Hispanic community than McCain (and Hispanics are not a monolithic voting block as the democrats seem to think) if the Hispanics voting for McCain are doing so because they feel he’ll be better for their interests then more power to them; I disagree and will vote accordingly.
Re: Alito, if McCain wouldn’t have offered him, he’d have been wrong. Who would he have sent instead? Inquiring minds want to know. Certainly not someone of the Scalia mold, too controversial for John “I just want to be loved” McCain.
Re: Romney’s money; that is a class envy argument and I won’t engage further.
37. Dasein Libsbane | February 1st, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Rico,
McCain offers a punitive “Carbon Credits” scheme in a blatant effort to appeal to the Global Warming panic. You, economists and climate change experts agree that it will have little if any effect on global carbon dioxide output and all agree that it will be detrimental to our economy (if they don?t agree … they ought to!)
Romney has offered a free enterprise, governmental sponsored, incentive program for industry and educational resources to put our best efforts to solve the problem of reliance on fossil fuels and reliance on hostile agents for same. Which would you rather see, another government boon-doggle ala war on Drugs or a cooperative like the man on the moon by the end of the decade success?
McCain; government is the answer. Romney; government is the problem; industry is the answer.
I don’t see a RCH’s worth of difference between Hillary and Obama; and barely that between McCain and Hillary.
38. Dasein Libsbane | February 1st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
In the Reagan tradition, I’m willing to compromise on some to get most; I’m not willing to compromise everything to get an (R) in the White House.
Speaing of Reagan, we love Nancy because she loved Ronny, not because she picks Presidential candidates for us.
39. Jim Oliver | February 1st, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Whoa Whoa Whoa,
Ann Coulter, and now Bane, support my candidate (Hillary) over the likely Republican?
Hide the razor blades
Flush the Ambien
Bury the S&W
It’s going to be a long night…
40. Dasein Libsbane | February 1st, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Jim,
Liked it once, they’ll love it twice.
In 1992 Clinton won, democrats controlled everything, in Clinton’s efforts to retain power he engaged in the scorched earth policy of personal destruction (kinda like … now), democrats lost Congress, lost the states, lost their way, and lost the White House … twice, to someone you derided as buffoonish.
Let’s say it plays the other way; McCain wins, a petty angry man alienates the base of the Republican party, Republicans splinter, vote for “no possible chance” candidates, democrats in permanent majority, Republicans in the wilderness for years to come.
You better pray that McCain wins.
41. Jim Oliver | February 1st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Bane,
UNLESS Hill learns from ‘92.
What if the economy improves, to a degree, even with the capital gains tax raise she’ll surely impose? What if al qaeda is trully diminished for the next decade? What if the response to the next hurricane doesn’t look so bad, on the surface at least? What if she doesn’t raise taxes on the middle class?
As you righties frequently imply, and we lefties usually denounce, America has a core strength regardless of what politician is in charge. Hill may just take credit for this, and thus be the smart Democrat we on the left have been seeking for 50 years.
You righties have long been predicting the end of the world if a Clinton gets back in If she wins, and the Rapture doesn’t happen in 4 or 8 years, you folks are sure going to have some splainin to do.
42. Dasein Libsbane | February 1st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Jim,
What if the economy improves? Like it did in 1993 after the recession? Did that stop Clinton?
What if al Qaeda is truly diminished for the next decade? You mean like the threat from Iraq diminished right after Gulf War I? Did that stop Clinton?
What if the response to the next hurricane doesn’t look so bad? You mean like the response to the flooding in the Mississippi basin? Did that stop Clinton?
What if she doesn’t raise taxes on the middle class? No, seriously …
What if Clinton learned his (her) lesson? Did you see any evidence of that on the campaign trail this year?
Clinton took credit for all the same things in the 90’s, as Obama is fond of pointing out, and didn’t actually do anything to accomplish anything. How would a Hillary presidency differ?
Righties won’t have to explain anything… we’ll be the party in power; just a matter of two years. Two years … that should give you lefties nightmares.
Bwahahahahahah! (He who laughs last …. )
43. Doug | February 1st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Dasien at 36,
You aren’t willing to talk class envy argument (though it is true that Romney brought in less money than McCain in the 4th qtr.) but you are willing to admit to blatent racism?
Your comments on immigration issue at #36 basically is the argument that if Hispanics vote more for McCain, than you’re for Romney.
That is the same method the Southern white males used in South Carolina regarding whether they should vote for Obama
44. Jim Oliver | February 1st, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Bane,
You may be right. Hill may just be another stupid Dem, in which case it’s 1992 all over again.
But are you actually going to vote for her, over McCain? Could you actually pull the lever if it had Clinton’s name on it? It just seems like a huge personal risk, from your point of view.
I guess we’ll see what happens…one of us will surely be hoist by our own petard. As far as I’m concerned, If I get emotionally whacked for voting for Clinton, then I end up with normal, lefty angst…no different from where I am now.
But if you vote for her, and she turns out popular and powerful, you are going to have a serious “WHAT WAS I THINKING” moment…not a pretty thought.
I also think you’re overestimating McCain’s ability to destroy the Republicans. I bet he’d just LOVE vetoing all the Dem spending bills, and if the Dems in congress get the blame for expiring the Bush tax cuts they are history for decades, no matter who is president.
So I just don’t see where you’re coming from on this…but if you really want to vote for Hillary, who am I to stop you?
45. plainjane | February 1st, 2008 at 7:35 pm
The rightwing’s hatred of McCain is proof bipartisan within the neocon wing of the Republican party is a dirty word. The fact he tried to reach out is being used against him. The neocon view that any idea contrary to their own is wrong may indicate they have flipped over to Fascism.
Lack of any kind of partisanship is why President Bush sits at 29%. He placed ideologues instead of competent leaders in important post; result Katrina, no Bin Laden and a six-year involvement in someone else’s civil war.
Can’t tell you how many times I read on this blog how the Democrats were unwilling to work in a bipartisan manner with issues involving President Bush. The treatment of McCain’s bipartisan ways is proof this message out of the White House was just another one of their lies.
Again the next post by Mark or Matt on the lack of Democratic partisanship you can blow it out your ear.
46. Dasein Libsbane | February 1st, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Doug,
Your logic, if I may call it that is exactly the McCain/Clinton word twisting that I abhor. To refresh your memory I wrote, “ if the Hispanics voting for McCain are doing so because they feel he’ll be better for their interests then more power to them; I disagree and will vote accordingly.” To state that this is racist is dishonest and dishonorable.
47. Dasein Libsbane | February 1st, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Jim,
Conservatives here in California are and will be always in the political wastelands, never to have a voice and never to be of influence. Why do we do this to ourselves? Because there is a principle larger than the (R) or the (D); I could do what democrats do routinely, support a disastrous candidate who promises such things as “I’ll sign Welfare Reform, then dismantle it after the election.”
I can accept some things that are outside of my belief system; I voted for Bush twice; in order to get the greater prize. But some things I cannot sell out, some things are worth standing up for, and if Hillary turns out to be a fine President; how exactly have I lost?
And if I don’t vote for McCain and he turns out to be a good President; think of the money I’ll make selling ski trips in hell.
48. Mark Noonan | February 1st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Bane,
Can’t see the logic in helping Hillary into the White House - heck, even Obama would be better than Hillary. She’s hopelessly corrupt and, well, rather wicked in the way she conducts herself (I don’t like using that word, but its the only way to describe her actions).
49. Joe | February 1st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
But if you vote for her, and she turns out popular and powerful, you are going to have a serious “WHAT WAS I THINKING” moment…not a pretty thought.
Isn’t that what we WANT in a President??? Someone that turns out to be “popular and powerful”? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a President that turns out to be someone popular with a large number of Americans?
Why would that be so bad? Is it only bad if it is a Dem? Is it only bad because it is a Clinton?
Maybe I should bring this up on the Defend Clinton post, but since you guys brought it up………………
50. Jim Oliver | February 2nd, 2008 at 1:08 am
Of course it wouldn’t be bad if Hillary becomes a model president. I hope she becomes one. Just surprised by your analysis, that is all.
To where can I mail you a Hilliary ‘08 bumper sticker? or perhaps you prefer yard signs?
51. StopJohnLiberalMcCain | February 2nd, 2008 at 2:02 am
McCain is 135 year old man who has a volcanic temper. He is going to let it fly before November, 2008 and his candidacy will be over.
52. Dasein Libsbane | February 2nd, 2008 at 11:02 am
Mark,
How quickly you’re willing to concede the race to the establishment candidate. Let’s go back, go way back to 1976; conservatives politely acquiesced to the establishment candidate Ford and sent Reagan back to California to rethink his strategy. Result; establishment candidate gets his arse whuped and the liberal nincompoop Carter is a one-term president.
Now to 2008, Is there someone out there with conservative credentials? Someone that believes in free market solutions, someone that wants to strengthen the family and render under Caesar only that which Caesar is entitled to protect our freedoms and stay out of our way? There’s at least two still in the race; neither of which is Hillary.
Long before I’m willing to concede the White House to Cerberus Clinton I’ll fight to get a candidate closer to my ideology, one tat doesn’t call me a racist because I want the law enforced.
53. Almiranta | February 5th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Back up just a little bit, regarding the amnesty (citizenship) issue on immigration. I keep hearing people claim that supporting legalized immigration and denying citizenship to illegals will somehow alienate the “Hispanic” or “Latin” voter.
If a Latino person is legally qualified to vote, after immigrating to the United States, that person went through the demanding and expensive channels we required to get citizenship. I work with a lot of people from Central and South America, have sponsored three and am sponsoring a fourth, and they either have families with naturalized citizens or friends who are or who have families who are. And if you think there is opposition to amnesty among native-born Americans, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
These people are so outraged, and feel so betrayed, by a system which could even consider handing out for free what they worked so hard to achieve, it is strange to think they would resent having their sacrifices acknowledged and respected.
The only ones who are likely to object are those who would benefit by such largesse as handing out unearned citizenship, and those who would benefit from this vote-buying.
I think any candidate could rally support for a truly comprehensive bill—that is, a pragmatic compromise that acknowledges the inability to reasonably send all illegals “home” to reapply for entry, one that empahsizes border security, increases the penalties for illegal crossing, establishes a PROVISIONAL and temporary visa system for those already established here and a guest worker program for those who qualify, and maybe the possibility of permanent residency, but no citizenship, ever.
The plans already presented offer, among other things, the insult to naturalized citizens of the wholesale handing out of citizenship to those who have broken the law and what is essentially permanent and irrevocable visas without any background check, verification of employment, or any of the other requirements placed upon legal immigrants.
Our own Constitution demands that all people be treated equally, yet we already have in place a de facto system of one set of laws for some people and another set for others. Granting citizenship to people who have not obeyed the same rules and laws others have had to follow would just be another unconstitutional establishment of different laws for different groups of people.
I suggest that the candidate who looks the naturalized citizen in the eye and says “I, and this country, respect and admire you and your respect for the laws of this country. There is no way we aren going to do anything that diminishes the sacrifices you have made to become a part of the United States, and for this reason we are not going to allow people who did not respect our laws to achieve what you have worked to hard to accomplish” is NOT going to “lose the Hispanic vote”.
When my brother was T-boned by a truck driven by a drunken illegal, the other car involved in the accident was driven by two naturalized citizens originally from Mexico—and their outrage at the preferential treatment given to the drunk driver was far greater than my brother’s. They were extemely vocal about the disgrace of ilegal Mexicans being treated better than citizens are (he was not even ticketed even though he was drunk, ran a stop sign, and left the scene of the accident, whereas any of the rest of us would have been thrown in jail) and lamented the unearned privileges these people are handed.
This fear of losing the Hispanic vote was invented somewhere along the line, and has taken on a life of its own.