Mr. independent Frickin' neutered himself for the love of G.W.Bush, who fucked him hard in 2000.
I'm with Cos...FUCK John McCain.
I dunno man. I think he's getting a little more heat in here than he deserves vis-a-vis the other Republicans.
his "embrace" of W -- while embarrassing in hindsight -- is nowhere NEAR the level of flip-floppery and craven pandering that we've seen from Romney and Rudi. those two dudes have made ASTONISHING reversals on very significant policy points (to the deafening silence of the GOP that destroyed Kerry for supposedly doing the same.).
I'd say compared to the rest of the GOP field, McCain has "neutered" himself the least.
not sure why there's a whole thread bashing this guy compared to the rest of those clowns.
You need to pull your head out of your ass. McCain made what is quite possibly the most mind boggling flip-flop in political history when he allowed Bush and Cheney to bully him into preserving the govt's right to torture in the so-called McCain "anti-torture bill". How is it even possible to imagine that a man who was brutally assaulted for 5 years in a Vietnamese prison camp could sanction the kinds of violence against detainees is beyond even the most cynical of political observers. Of course the answer is simple, in the fall of 2006 the GOP was on the ropes politically and another legislative slap in the face was seen as a nail in the electoral coffin. So GOP leaders appealed to McCain's well known sense of ambition to get him to reverse his opposition to gov't sponsored torture. This is the cave-in of all cave-ins.
Don't get me started on his campaigning for BUSH in 2004 after they tarred and feathered him with racist push polling. McCain is a joke and a deeply conservative war monger who would bring more of the same stupidity that Bush and Co have been serving up since 2000.
As for evangelicals and their thinking towards Romney, last week I had a very revealing conversation with my contractor who is a pentecostal. When I asked him if Romney's Mormonism would play any role in determining who to support for president, he said, "You might as well vote for a space alien rather than him given what they believe." Straight from the horses' mouth as it were.
Mr. independent Frickin' neutered himself for the love of G.W.Bush, who fucked him hard in 2000.
I'm with Cos...FUCK John McCain.
I dunno man. I think he's getting a little more heat in here than he deserves vis-a-vis the other Republicans.
his "embrace" of W -- while embarrassing in hindsight -- is nowhere NEAR the level of flip-floppery and craven pandering that we've seen from Romney and Rudi. those two dudes have made ASTONISHING reversals on very significant policy points (to the deafening silence of the GOP that destroyed Kerry for supposedly doing the same.).
I'd say compared to the rest of the GOP field, McCain has "neutered" himself the least.
not sure why there's a whole thread bashing this guy compared to the rest of those clowns.
You need to pull your head out of your ass. McCain made what is quite possibly the most mind boggling flip-flop in political history when he allowed Bush and Cheney to bully him into preserving the govt's right to torture in the so-called McCain "anti-torture bill". How is it even possible to imagine that a man who was brutally assaulted for 5 years in a Vietnamese prison camp could sanction the kinds of violence against detainees is beyond even the most cynical of political observers. Of course the answer is simple, in the fall of 2006 the GOP was on the ropes politically and another legislative slap in the face was seen as a nail in the electoral coffin. So GOP leaders appealed to McCain's well known sense of ambition to get him to reverse his opposition to gov't sponsored torture. This is the cave-in of all cave-ins.
Don't get me started on his campaigning for BUSH in 2004 after they tarred and feathered him with racist push polling. McCain is a joke and a deeply conservative war monger who would bring more of the same stupidity that Bush and Co have been serving up since 2000.
As for evangelicals and their thinking towards Romney, last week I had a very revealing conversation with my contractor who is a pentecostal. When I asked him if Romney's Mormonism would play any role in determining who to support for president, he said, "You might as well vote for a space alien rather than him given what they believe." Straight from the horses' mouth as it were.
dude, this thread is clearly motivated by FEAR that this guy can actually prevail in a general. plain and simple. (hence the talk about Romney's religion being a liability).
and that's fine. I agree he's the most viable GOP candidate. but there's no reason to single out McCain for his policy reversals, not given the behavior of the other frontrunners.
i keep thinking THIS is why the media keeps marginalizing Edwards...
a lot of his campaign members & supporters say this. it's true he has been somewhat forgotten over the first serious black/woman candidates, but i think he has less coverage because he has not won elections. so far he has only one primary victory over two campaigns.
Why do the vast majority of conservative republicans hate McCain? They took him out in 2000 and they're doing everything they can to derail his campaign in 2008.
Why do the vast majority of conservative republicans hate McCain? They took him out in 2000 and they're doing everything they can to derail his campaign in 2008.
Why do the vast majority of conservative republicans hate McCain? They took him out in 2000 and they're doing everything they can to derail his campaign in 2008.
They are?
Some Repubs are suspicious of McCain's commitment to prolife (I don't know why he has always been prolife best I know) "family values", hatred of gays and other things like that which are important for some Rs.
As a fiscal conservative he has opposed many tax cuts, which most Rs think are more important than balancing the budget. (Unless Ds are in control then balancing the budget suddenly becomes important to them.)
Despite being a fiscal conservative his years in office have resulted in voting for mountains of pork.
He is weak on anti- poor, Black and immigrant issues.
He is an interventionist. Many Rs are isolationists.
I think the biggest issue is campaign finance reform. Most Rs and most powerful Rs believe that they benefit more from campaign contributions than Ds. So his campaign finance reform was seen as an attack on the Republican party.
He is anti-torture. Our local conservative columnist listed this as a reason he can't support McCain.
The 2000 thing was just Bush's campaign being more vicious than McCain's. Could happen to anyone.
Enemies to the Right of Him Charge of the anti-McCain brigade. by Stephen F. Hayes 02/04/2008, Volume 013, Issue 20
West Palm Beach John McCain spoke through gritted teeth. "I respect Rush Limbaugh," he said, days after America's most influential talk radio host proclaimed that his nomination would ruin the Republican party.
Straight talk?
For two weeks, as the Republican presidential race moved south and he notched important victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina, John McCain has been subject to a series of withering attacks from the stars of talk radio and other prominent conservatives. Some of the criticism is warranted. McCain seems to delight in taking positions that upset conservatives, as he did at virtually every campaign stop in New Hampshire by going out of his way to talk about global warming. The argument, which he repeated in the debate here last Thursday, goes something like this:
My friends, I believe global climate change is real, and I think it's a major issue worldwide and in this country. I have been at odds with the Bush administration on this issue for a long time. Suppose that there's no such thing as climate change and we adopt clean technologies. We go to nuclear power. We develop automobiles that go 200 miles before you have to plug them in. We go to hybrids. We use ethanol. There's a broad array of steps we can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Suppose we do these things and we're wrong about global warming. Then all we've done is given our children a cleaner world. But suppose we are right--that climate change is an urgent issue--and we do nothing. I think the consequences are obvious and would be devastating.
To a conservative, the consequences of the government mandates required to accomplish these things should be equally obvious and only slightly less devastating. Think of the vast tangle of new regulations that will cost American companies and consumers untold billions, potentially crippling the economy. It is not difficult to understand why this galls McCain's critics.
There are other concerns, many of them well known. McCain did not support George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and often used left-wing class warfare arguments to voice his opposition. Rather than simply fight for conservative jurists, McCain joined the so-called Gang of 14 that sought to find compromise on judicial appointments. He led Senate opposition to Bush administration policies on detainee interrogation, practices that even administration critics acknowledge have prevented potentially catastrophic attacks. Then there was illegal immigration. And campaign finance reform.
Add them up, the critics argue, and you have John McCain, the Anti-Conservative.
"McCain is not only not conservative enough," writes David Limbaugh, Rush's brother, "he has also built a reputation as a maverick by stabbing his party in the back--not in furtherance of conservative principles but by betraying them."
Like so many McCain critics, Limbaugh turned to former Senator Rick Santorum--"whose conservative credentials are beyond question"--as an expert witness. "I don't hardly agree with him on hardly any issues," Santorum said.
Really? Santorum's lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 88. John McCain's is 82.3. One would suppose there might be some overlap. The difference between a real conservative and a phony one apparently lies in those six points.
Although many others have been as critical of McCain, perhaps no one has been as hypocritical. In 2006, when Santorum was running for reelection, he asked McCain to come to Pennsylvania to campaign on his behalf. When McCain obliged, Santorum put the video on his campaign website, listing it first among "key events" of the year. That's gratitude, Santorum-style.
Other conservative politicians--or former politicians--have taken their anti-McCain arguments to absurd lengths. Take Tom DeLay, for instance, whose K Street pandering led to numerous indictments and contributed greatly to the Republican losses in 2006. The former House majority leader said, without a trace of irony in his voice, that John McCain "has done more to hurt the Republican party than any elected official I know of."
Mark Levin, a longtime confidant of both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity who now hosts his own increasingly popular talk show, took the anti-McCain argument a step further on his show last Wednesday. "At this point, anybody who supports John McCain and claims to be a conservative, let me be blunt: You're not a conservative."
Which came as a surprise to Jack Kemp, the ardent supply-sider who was the conservative alternative to George H.W. Bush in 1988. "That's just so preposterous," said Kemp. "I don't agree with McCain on several things. He's gotten right on the economy. He's right on foreign policy. And he's right on the war on terror."
And no doubt a surprise also to Phil Gramm (lifetime ACU rating of 95), whose presidential campaign was endorsed by National Review in 1996. And to Sam Brownback, a stalwart conservative and one of the most outspoken pro-life politicians in America today. And to Tom Coburn from Oklahoma, arguably the most conservative member of the Senate.
"John McCain and I have stood side by side on many issues," Coburn said in endorsing McCain last week. The most important, he added, are "fiscal responsibility" and the "sanctity of human life."
Most of the rank-and-file conservatives supporting McCain point to his leadership on Iraq and his leadership on defense issues. Richard Allen, national security adviser to Ronald Reagan, made this point in an email he sent January 3, the night of the Iowa caucuses, to a small group of longtime conservatives.
I was early on a Fred Thompson supporter, worked with him, thought he would have the capacity to grow to a major force. Won't go into the details, but I was impressed. For all sorts of reasons, I suspect, there has been no policy bloom there. Not an issue of fine character, because that he has--it has to do with policy.
Allen continued:
John McCain is our best and safest choice. Some cannot forgive past transgressions on campaign finance or other matters. But when you stop to reflect on the matter, with whom--among all those out there--are we really going to be more secure, and who has the understanding of BOTH foreign policy issues and national security issues we face? I've spent all my adult life, more than five decades, in these vineyards. They matter to me, as I know they do to all of you. I say it's McCain.
So what if Republican primary voters say it's McCain? Can there be a rapprochement with some of his conservative critics?
Levin, who has been as critical of McCain as anyone, has not ruled out supporting him. "If he does squeak through, I'll have to figure out what I'm going to do about it. We'll see. We'll see."
Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD
I'm with Jonny on this. It looks really bad. Hillary is pulling through and she will likely loose against McCain for a number of reasons. This is disappointing. But I don't hate McCain as much as most of you. I voted for him in the SC 1999 primary. Mainly to oust Bush, but I might have even voted for him against Gore. That was then and I've seen him change a lot. Remember McCain/Feingold? At the same time, the GOP primary has really brought out the worst in him. But the fundamental issue for me is Iraq. And, well, Hillary ain't too much better in that regard. I met McCain a number of times. I used to lobby for APA and I'd see him a lot. He's comes off as very genuine and sincere. Last time I saw him in person he looked REALLY old. My future brother in law works on his campaign. He will probably choose Lindsey Graham as his running mate. If Hillary and Obama can make up, I believe that ticket may win over Grandpa Mackie and the Cuntry Faggit. But honestly, I was hoping Terry McAulif's 'going away' party would be the last time I had to see all these washed up Democunts.
if clinton wins the nomination, which she probably will, all those change democrats will stay home come November 2008. That plus her high negatives are a lethal combination. To be honest, except for Obama's having locked himself into a foreign policy that requires us to abandon Iraq when (a) things are starting to improve; and (2) it becomes increasingly obvious that we need a counterweight to the growing Iranian influence in that region, I actually like him. He is different from the top-down liberals epitomized by the Clinton/Shumer/Kennedy dinosaurs. As I read recently, and agree, I get the impression from him that he is not so much interested in trying to save everybody, but rather allowing people to save themselves.
if clinton wins the nomination, which she probably will, all those change democrats will stay home come November 2008. That plus her high negatives are a lethal combination. To be honest, except for Obama's having locked himself into a foreign policy that requires us to abandon Iraq when (a) things are starting to improve; and (2) it becomes increasingly obvious that we need a counterweight to the growing Iranian influence in that region, I actually like him. He is different from the top-down liberals epitomized by the Clinton/Shumer/Kennedy dinosaurs. As I read recently, and agree, I get the impression from him that he is not so much interested in trying to save everybody, but rather allowing people to save themselves.
you are talking out of your ass. recent polls show that a hillary v. mccain and a obama v. mccain race are only 2 points apart. most analysts agree that those numbers are skewed because when it gets to a general election, and hillary is the dem candidate, she is going to bring woman out to vote who might not have voted or who cross party lines.
i'm glad to see that you like obama other than for the fact that he's not a war monger, but that means you also like hillary because their policies are nearly identical.
if clinton wins the nomination, which she probably will, all those change democrats will stay home come November 2008. That plus her high negatives are a lethal combination. To be honest, except for Obama's having locked himself into a foreign policy that requires us to abandon Iraq when (a) things are starting to improve; and (2) it becomes increasingly obvious that we need a counterweight to the growing Iranian influence in that region, I actually like him. He is different from the top-down liberals epitomized by the Clinton/Shumer/Kennedy dinosaurs. As I read recently, and agree, I get the impression from him that he is not so much interested in trying to save everybody, but rather allowing people to save themselves.
you are talking out of your ass. recent polls show that a hillary v. mccain and a obama v. mccain race are only 2 points apart. most analysts agree that those numbers are skewed because when it gets to a general election, and hillary is the dem candidate, she is going to bring woman out to vote who might not have voted or who cross party lines.
i'm glad to see that you like obama other than for the fact that he's not a war monger, but that means you also like hillary because their policies are nearly identical.
KVH, if their policies are so similar KVH, why would you choose the candidate who is immediately going to alienate the half of the country (dems and reps as this thread should be sufficient proof) who find her absolutely repugnant?
I wonder how much clout the Kennedy endorsement is likely to have. There's some chatter about how this will boost Obama's profile amongst Latino voters.
Latest (1/27) polling on CA shows Hillary with about a 9 point lead - notably, she's polling really well with Latinos and Asians but we'll see how this plays out by Tuesday. Good thing the state isn't winner take all.
I wasn't a big Obama fan a few months ago but as this campaign has rolled along, he's becoming a considerably more favorable candidate over Hillary, that's for certain.
if clinton wins the nomination, which she probably will, all those change democrats will stay home come November 2008. That plus her high negatives are a lethal combination. To be honest, except for Obama's having locked himself into a foreign policy that requires us to abandon Iraq when (a) things are starting to improve; and (2) it becomes increasingly obvious that we need a counterweight to the growing Iranian influence in that region, I actually like him. He is different from the top-down liberals epitomized by the Clinton/Shumer/Kennedy dinosaurs. As I read recently, and agree, I get the impression from him that he is not so much interested in trying to save everybody, but rather allowing people to save themselves.
you are talking out of your ass. recent polls show that a hillary v. mccain and a obama v. mccain race are only 2 points apart. most analysts agree that those numbers are skewed because when it gets to a general election, and hillary is the dem candidate, she is going to bring woman out to vote who might not have voted or who cross party lines.
i'm glad to see that you like obama other than for the fact that he's not a war monger, but that means you also like hillary because their policies are nearly identical.
KVH, if their policies are so similar KVH, why would you choose the candidate who is immediately going to alienate the half of the country (dems and reps as this thread should be sufficient proof) who find her absolutely repugnant?
people are caught up in the symbolism of an Obama presidency but if/when it turns out that hillary gets the nod, i think its naive to think that his supporters wouldn't follow a candidate with identical policies. the media is to blame for a lot of the hate against the clintons. it makes good press. considering the skeletons in mccains closet, i think the hillary bashing (which has been going on for years) will become old news and they will find somebody new to pick on.
this is about mccain though right? how could you possibly support this guy? bush smeared him and ran him out in '00, then he became bush's sycophant when he thought it could get him elected in '08. the guy has zero credibility and the obama spin that "hillary will do anything to get elected" could never be more appropriate of mccain. plus, he is a total nutjob.
the candidate who is immediately going to alienate the half of the country (dems and reps as this thread should be sufficient proof) who find her absolutely repugnant?
Don't get me wrong, I'll vote for her, but with the same enthusiasm that I voted for this nutsack:
Anyone here think that the nation will pick him over Billary?
If so, we'll be singing that lame beach-boys song soon enough.
I think any Republican candidate can (and likely will) beat any Democrat candidate.
Saba endorsing Obama makes me feel all creepy, like bugs are crawling on me. I should be glad, I am sure there are many more young Rs read to vote for someone who can look beyond party politics.
how could you possibly support this guy? bush smeared him and ran him out in '00, then he became bush's sycophant when he thought it could get him elected in '08. the guy has zero credibility and the obama spin that "hillary will do anything to get elected" could never be more appropriate of mccain. plus, he is a total nutjob.
Anyone here think that the nation will pick him over Billary?
If so, we'll be singing that lame beach-boys song soon enough.
I think any Republican candidate can (and likely will) beat any Democrat candidate.
Saba endorsing Obama makes me feel all creepy, like bugs are crawling on me. I should be glad, I am sure there are many more young Rs read to vote for someone who can look beyond party politics.
Obama is polling ahead of Hillary amongst California Republicans (not that they get to vote in the primary). I don't know if that's an anti-Hillary thing or a pro-Obama thing, or both.
And Keith - I think it's presumptuous to assume how voters will react. I think it's fairly plain that the momentum for Obama is not around policies but around symbolism and emotion. Those are the two things that make Hillary a fundamentally undesirable candidate to many people. Columnists aren't going after her on the basis of policy really (except maybe over the war authorization bill) - the ones I've read are really focused on the differences in outlooks, attitudes and personality and especially with this new "Billary" line, they have a new club to wield.
As to what will happen in a general election - I think all the polling around that is pretty flimsy. I'm not trying to prognosticate that far ahead - let's see how next Tues plays out.
And Keith - I think it's presumptuous to assume how voters will react. I think it's fairly plain that the momentum for Obama is not around policies but around symbolism and emotion. Those are the two things that make Hillary a fundamentally undesirable candidate to many people. Columnists aren't going after her on the basis of policy really (except maybe over the war authorization bill) - the ones I've read are really focused on the differences in outlooks, attitudes and personality and especially with this new "Billary" line, they have a new club to wield.
As to what will happen in a general election - I think all the polling around that is pretty flimsy. I'm not trying to prognosticate that far ahead - let's see how next Tues plays out.
i disagree because the anti-hillary lines, including all this billary stuff, is nothing new. republicans were pushing the same spin on her when she ran for senate and for the past 2 years as she's been the democratic front runner. the uninformed are the only ones whose ears perk up when they hear commentators talk about hillary being "divisive".
we all know what the ammo is for the republican spin on hillary. on the other hand, the gop has been hands off on obama so far. who knows what crap they will spin on him if he is the dem candidate.
hillary supporters will 100% be voting for obama if he wins. will the numbers be different on the flip side? definitely. she's not going to pull the youth vote like he can...but, dems woud be foolish if they didn't vote for her and the six months or so between the dem convention and the general election will give dem voters plenty of time to warm up to her (when compared to romney or mccain).
And Keith - I think it's presumptuous to assume how voters will react. I think it's fairly plain that the momentum for Obama is not around policies but around symbolism and emotion. Those are the two things that make Hillary a fundamentally undesirable candidate to many people. Columnists aren't going after her on the basis of policy really (except maybe over the war authorization bill) - the ones I've read are really focused on the differences in outlooks, attitudes and personality and especially with this new "Billary" line, they have a new club to wield.
As to what will happen in a general election - I think all the polling around that is pretty flimsy. I'm not trying to prognosticate that far ahead - let's see how next Tues plays out.
i disagree because the anti-hillary lines, including all this billary stuff, is nothing new. republicans were pushing the same spin on her when she ran for senate and for the past 2 years as she's been the democratic front runner. the uninformed are the only ones whose ears perk up when they hear commentators talk about hillary being "divisive".
we all know what the ammo is for the republican spin on hillary. on the other hand, the gop has been hands off on obama so far. who knows what crap they will spin on him if he is the dem candidate.
hillary supporters will 100% be voting for obama if he wins. will the numbers be different on the flip side? definitely. she's not going to pull the youth vote like he can...but, dems woud be foolish if they didn't vote for her and the six months or so between the dem convention and the general election will give dem voters plenty of time to warm up to her (when compared to romney or mccain).
I could never support Obama because I think to abandon Iraq would be a big mistake.
Where did you get the idea he wants to leave anytime soon?
I think any Dem candidate is going to talk "we're getting out of Iraq" but once in office, I don't see it happening, not in any abrupt way. Shit, even I have to agree: "to abandon Iraq would be a big mistake."
Comments
haha!!!! end of thread. i defy anyone to prove that mccain's hands are not velcroed onto bush.
You need to pull your head out of your ass. McCain made what is quite possibly the most mind boggling flip-flop in political history when he allowed Bush and Cheney to bully him into preserving the govt's right to torture in the so-called McCain "anti-torture bill". How is it even possible to imagine that a man who was brutally assaulted for 5 years in a Vietnamese prison camp could sanction the kinds of violence against detainees is beyond even the most cynical of political observers. Of course the answer is simple, in the fall of 2006 the GOP was on the ropes politically and another legislative slap in the face was seen as a nail in the electoral coffin. So GOP leaders appealed to McCain's well known sense of ambition to get him to reverse his opposition to gov't sponsored torture. This is the cave-in of all cave-ins.
Don't get me started on his campaigning for BUSH in 2004 after they tarred and feathered him with racist push polling. McCain is a joke and a deeply conservative war monger who would bring more of the same stupidity that Bush and Co have been serving up since 2000.
As for evangelicals and their thinking towards Romney, last week I had a very revealing conversation with my contractor who is a pentecostal. When I asked him if Romney's Mormonism would play any role in determining who to support for president, he said, "You might as well vote for a space alien rather than him given what they believe." Straight from the horses' mouth as it were.
dude, this thread is clearly motivated by FEAR that this guy can actually prevail in a general. plain and simple. (hence the talk about Romney's religion being a liability).
and that's fine. I agree he's the most viable GOP candidate. but there's no reason to single out McCain for his policy reversals, not given the behavior of the other frontrunners.
Its not flip-floppery. Its nuance that you pleebs just can't understand.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-02/19/067r-021900-idx.html
a lot of his campaign members & supporters say this. it's true he has been somewhat forgotten over the first serious black/woman candidates, but i think he has less coverage because he has not won elections. so far he has only one primary victory over two campaigns.
They are?
Some Repubs are suspicious of McCain's commitment to prolife (I don't know why he has always been prolife best I know) "family values", hatred of gays and other things like that which are important for some Rs.
As a fiscal conservative he has opposed many tax cuts, which most Rs think are more important than balancing the budget. (Unless Ds are in control then balancing the budget suddenly becomes important to them.)
Despite being a fiscal conservative his years in office have resulted in voting for mountains of pork.
He is weak on anti- poor, Black and immigrant issues.
He is an interventionist. Many Rs are isolationists.
I think the biggest issue is campaign finance reform. Most Rs and most powerful Rs believe that they benefit more from campaign contributions than Ds. So his campaign finance reform was seen as an attack on the Republican party.
He is anti-torture. Our local conservative columnist listed this as a reason he can't support McCain.
The 2000 thing was just Bush's campaign being more vicious than McCain's. Could happen to anyone.
Charge of the anti-McCain brigade.
by Stephen F. Hayes
02/04/2008, Volume 013, Issue 20
West Palm Beach
John McCain spoke through gritted teeth. "I respect Rush Limbaugh," he said, days after America's most influential talk radio host proclaimed that his nomination would ruin the Republican party.
Straight talk?
For two weeks, as the Republican presidential race moved south and he notched important victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina, John McCain has been subject to a series of withering attacks from the stars of talk radio and other prominent conservatives. Some of the criticism is warranted. McCain seems to delight in taking positions that upset conservatives, as he did at virtually every campaign stop in New Hampshire by going out of his way to talk about global warming. The argument, which he repeated in the debate here last Thursday, goes something like this:
My friends, I believe global climate change is real, and I think it's a major issue worldwide and in this country. I have been at odds with the Bush administration on this issue for a long time. Suppose that there's no such thing as climate change and we adopt clean technologies. We go to nuclear power. We develop automobiles that go 200 miles before you have to plug them in. We go to hybrids. We use ethanol. There's a broad array of steps we can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Suppose we do these things and we're wrong about global warming. Then all we've done is given our children a cleaner world. But suppose we are right--that climate change is an urgent issue--and we do nothing. I think the consequences are obvious and would be devastating.
To a conservative, the consequences of the government mandates required to accomplish these things should be equally obvious and only slightly less devastating. Think of the vast tangle of new regulations that will cost American companies and consumers untold billions, potentially crippling the economy. It is not difficult to understand why this galls McCain's critics.
There are other concerns, many of them well known. McCain did not support George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and often used left-wing class warfare arguments to voice his opposition. Rather than simply fight for conservative jurists, McCain joined the so-called Gang of 14 that sought to find compromise on judicial appointments. He led Senate opposition to Bush administration policies on detainee interrogation, practices that even administration critics acknowledge have prevented potentially catastrophic attacks. Then there was illegal immigration. And campaign finance reform.
Add them up, the critics argue, and you have John McCain, the Anti-Conservative.
"McCain is not only not conservative enough," writes David Limbaugh, Rush's brother, "he has also built a reputation as a maverick by stabbing his party in the back--not in furtherance of conservative principles but by betraying them."
Like so many McCain critics, Limbaugh turned to former Senator Rick Santorum--"whose conservative credentials are beyond question"--as an expert witness. "I don't hardly agree with him on hardly any issues," Santorum said.
Really? Santorum's lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 88. John McCain's is 82.3. One would suppose there might be some overlap. The difference between a real conservative and a phony one apparently lies in those six points.
Although many others have been as critical of McCain, perhaps no one has been as hypocritical. In 2006, when Santorum was running for reelection, he asked McCain to come to Pennsylvania to campaign on his behalf. When McCain obliged, Santorum put the video on his campaign website, listing it first among "key events" of the year. That's gratitude, Santorum-style.
Other conservative politicians--or former politicians--have taken their anti-McCain arguments to absurd lengths. Take Tom DeLay, for instance, whose K Street pandering led to numerous indictments and contributed greatly to the Republican losses in 2006. The former House majority leader said, without a trace of irony in his voice, that John McCain "has done more to hurt the Republican party than any elected official I know of."
Mark Levin, a longtime confidant of both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity who now hosts his own increasingly popular talk show, took the anti-McCain argument a step further on his show last Wednesday. "At this point, anybody who supports John McCain and claims to be a conservative, let me be blunt: You're not a conservative."
Which came as a surprise to Jack Kemp, the ardent supply-sider who was the conservative alternative to George H.W. Bush in 1988. "That's just so preposterous," said Kemp. "I don't agree with McCain on several things. He's gotten right on the economy. He's right on foreign policy. And he's right on the war on terror."
And no doubt a surprise also to Phil Gramm (lifetime ACU rating of 95), whose presidential campaign was endorsed by National Review in 1996. And to Sam Brownback, a stalwart conservative and one of the most outspoken pro-life politicians in America today. And to Tom Coburn from Oklahoma, arguably the most conservative member of the Senate.
"John McCain and I have stood side by side on many issues," Coburn said in endorsing McCain last week. The most important, he added, are "fiscal responsibility" and the "sanctity of human life."
Most of the rank-and-file conservatives supporting McCain point to his leadership on Iraq and his leadership on defense issues. Richard Allen, national security adviser to Ronald Reagan, made this point in an email he sent January 3, the night of the Iowa caucuses, to a small group of longtime conservatives.
I was early on a Fred Thompson supporter, worked with him, thought he would have the capacity to grow to a major force. Won't go into the details, but I was impressed. For all sorts of reasons, I suspect, there has been no policy bloom there. Not an issue of fine character, because that he has--it has to do with policy.
Allen continued:
John McCain is our best and safest choice. Some cannot forgive past transgressions on campaign finance or other matters. But when you stop to reflect on the matter, with whom--among all those out there--are we really going to be more secure, and who has the understanding of BOTH foreign policy issues and national security issues we face? I've spent all my adult life, more than five decades, in these vineyards. They matter to me, as I know they do to all of you. I say it's McCain.
So what if Republican primary voters say it's McCain? Can there be a rapprochement with some of his conservative critics?
Levin, who has been as critical of McCain as anyone, has not ruled out supporting him. "If he does squeak through, I'll have to figure out what I'm going to do about it. We'll see. We'll see."
Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD
Uhhhhh [i]derrrrrrr....[/b]
Anyone here think that the nation will pick him over Billary?
If so, we'll be singing that lame beach-boys song soon enough.
Months (weeks?) ago I was feeling anything will be better than that awful--worst EVAR--Bush administration.
But Hillary is so...
...bordering on...
you are talking out of your ass. recent polls show that a hillary v. mccain and a obama v. mccain race are only 2 points apart. most analysts agree that those numbers are skewed because when it gets to a general election, and hillary is the dem candidate, she is going to bring woman out to vote who might not have voted or who cross party lines.
i'm glad to see that you like obama other than for the fact that he's not a war monger, but that means you also like hillary because their policies are nearly identical.
KVH, if their policies are so similar KVH, why would you choose the candidate who is immediately going to alienate the half of the country (dems and reps as this thread should be sufficient proof) who find her absolutely repugnant?
yeah, those 'analysts'.
please.
Latest (1/27) polling on CA shows Hillary with about a 9 point lead - notably, she's polling really well with Latinos and Asians but we'll see how this plays out by Tuesday. Good thing the state isn't winner take all.
I wasn't a big Obama fan a few months ago but as this campaign has rolled along, he's becoming a considerably more favorable candidate over Hillary, that's for certain.
people are caught up in the symbolism of an Obama presidency but if/when it turns out that hillary gets the nod, i think its naive to think that his supporters wouldn't follow a candidate with identical policies. the media is to blame for a lot of the hate against the clintons. it makes good press. considering the skeletons in mccains closet, i think the hillary bashing (which has been going on for years) will become old news and they will find somebody new to pick on.
this is about mccain though right? how could you possibly support this guy? bush smeared him and ran him out in '00, then he became bush's sycophant when he thought it could get him elected in '08. the guy has zero credibility and the obama spin that "hillary will do anything to get elected" could never be more appropriate of mccain. plus, he is a total nutjob.
Don't get me wrong, I'll vote for her, but with the same enthusiasm that I voted for this nutsack:
I think any Republican candidate can (and likely will) beat any Democrat candidate.
Saba endorsing Obama makes me feel all creepy, like bugs are crawling on me. I should be glad, I am sure there are many more young Rs read to vote for someone who can look beyond party politics.
YOU SOUND PUSH POLLED
Obama is polling ahead of Hillary amongst California Republicans (not that they get to vote in the primary). I don't know if that's an anti-Hillary thing or a pro-Obama thing, or both.
And Keith - I think it's presumptuous to assume how voters will react. I think it's fairly plain that the momentum for Obama is not around policies but around symbolism and emotion. Those are the two things that make Hillary a fundamentally undesirable candidate to many people. Columnists aren't going after her on the basis of policy really (except maybe over the war authorization bill) - the ones I've read are really focused on the differences in outlooks, attitudes and personality and especially with this new "Billary" line, they have a new club to wield.
As to what will happen in a general election - I think all the polling around that is pretty flimsy. I'm not trying to prognosticate that far ahead - let's see how next Tues plays out.
2. I could never support Obama because I think to abandon Iraq would be a big mistake.
i disagree because the anti-hillary lines, including all this billary stuff, is nothing new. republicans were pushing the same spin on her when she ran for senate and for the past 2 years as she's been the democratic front runner. the uninformed are the only ones whose ears perk up when they hear commentators talk about hillary being "divisive".
we all know what the ammo is for the republican spin on hillary. on the other hand, the gop has been hands off on obama so far. who knows what crap they will spin on him if he is the dem candidate.
hillary supporters will 100% be voting for obama if he wins. will the numbers be different on the flip side? definitely. she's not going to pull the youth vote like he can...but, dems woud be foolish if they didn't vote for her and the six months or so between the dem convention and the general election will give dem voters plenty of time to warm up to her (when compared to romney or mccain).
you live in a fantasy.
On the flipside, the fact that KVN seems to think the bulk of the American electorate is "informed" is charming in a quaint, idealistic way.
b/w
It's a little early to start predicting how people will vote in a general election, no? Especially a Hillary vs. McCain one.
But if we're going to go there: Advantage = McCain.
Where did you get the idea he wants to leave anytime soon?
I think any Dem candidate is going to talk "we're getting out of Iraq" but once in office, I don't see it happening, not in any abrupt way. Shit, even I have to agree: "to abandon Iraq would be a big mistake."