More McCain: to the Right on many things, and right on the surge
I thought by now I’d be off the topic of McCain, but it seems to have legs.
For my readers who can’t see their way clear to supporting McCain in the general election if nominated, Jeff Jacoby does an excellent job of pointing out why McCain is not only a pragmatic choice for conservatives but a conservative choice:
…on the whole [McCain’s] record has been that of a robust and committed conservative. He is a spending hawk and an enemy of pork and earmarks. He has never voted to increase taxes, and wants the Bush tax cuts made permanent for the best of reasons: “They worked.” He is a staunch free-trader and a champion of school choice. He is unabashedly prolife and pro-Second Amendment. He opposes same-sex marriage. He wants entitlements reined in and personal retirement accounts expanded.
Jacoby points out that McCain’s ratings from conservative groups have consistently been high despite his admitted lapses from elements of the conservative canon. And Romney supporters might want to ponder this:
“Even with all the blemishes,” notes National Review, a leading journal on the right (and a backer of Romney), “McCain has a more consistent conservative record than Giuliani or Romney. . . . This is an abiding strength of his candidacy.”
But my point has not been that Republicans should vote for McCain over Romney. It’s that they should vote for him if he is the nominee in a general election against Clinton or Obama, whose ratings from conservative groups could hardly be any lower.
And to sit out the general election and not vote at all, thinking that therefore one has stood outside the fray without compromising one’s principles, is to delude oneself. A nonvote has the effect of allowing a vote for the liberal Democratic nominee to stand unopposed, and therefore furthering his/her election.
Jacoby again on the issue of conservative bona fides:
Conservatives bristle at the thought of a Republican president who might raise income and payroll taxes. Or enlarge the federal government instead of shrinking it. Or appoint Supreme Court justices who are anything but strict constructionists. Or grant a blanket amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
Now, I don’t believe that a President McCain would do any of those things. But President Reagan did all of them.
Those who consider McCain an unprincipled opportunist would do well to ponder the fact that he has stuck to certain extremely unpopular causes because he believes in them. One of these, of course, is the war in Iraq and the surge. And to those who make light of his advocacy in this regard by saying he was only interested in sheer numbers of troops and not the change in tactics that was really instrumental in our recent success there, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
It’s true that the press mainly covered McCain’s sound bites about needing more troops. But McCain’s website also contains excerpts from speeches and articles that indicate he was advocating a Petraeus-like counterinsurgency approach long before Petraeus was appointed for the job:
November 2003
“To win in Iraq, we should increase the number of forces in-country, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. I believe we must have in place another full division, giving us the necessary manpower to conduct a focused counterinsurgency campaign across the Sunni triangle that seals off enemy operating areas, conducts search and destroy operations and holds territory. Such a strategy would be the kind of new mission General Sanchez agreed would require additional forces. It’s a mystery to me why they are not forthcoming. We cannot achieve our political goals as long as a strategic region of Iraq is in a state of fundamental insecurity.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)
June 2005
“I think we need – I think we need more troops there … because we’re not staying once we attack and clear. We’ve got stay and expand.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 6/28/05)
McCain was virtually alone in this position at the time, and subsequent events have underscored his rightness. Compare and contrast this man as Commander-in-Chief to Hillary or Obama, both of whom have advocated cut and run in Iraq on many occasions (Obama with total and utter consistency, Clinton with a bit of characteristic hedging). It’s hard to imagine any conservative (except, perhaps, the Buchanan ultra-isolationist wing?) preferring either of the latter two as leader of our military policy.
For those who want more detailed evidence of McCain’s prescience and judgment on this score, take a look at this McCain position paper from November 10, 2005. I will quote it at some length—since the MSM never did:
…to win the war in Iraq, we need to make several significant policy changes.
Adopt a military counterinsurgency strategy. For most of the occupation, our military strategy was built around trying to secure the entirety of Iraq at the same time. With our current force structure and the power vacuum that persists in many areas, that is not possible today. In their attempt to secure all of Iraq, coalition forces engage in search and destroy operations to root out insurgent strongholds, with the aim of killing as many insurgents as possible. But our forces cannot hold the ground indefinitely, and when they move on to fight other battles, the insurgent ranks replenish and the strongholds fill again. Our troops must then reenter the same area and refight the same battle.
The example of Tal Afar is instructive. Coalition forces first fought in Tal Afar in September 2003, when the 101st Airborne Division took the city, then withdrew. Over the next year insurgents streamed back into the area, and in September 2004 Stryker brigades and Iraqi security forces went into Tal Afar again, chasing out insurgents again. They then left again, moving on to fight insurgents in other locations. Then in September 2005, the Third Armored Calvary Regiment swept into Tal Afar, killing insurgents while others retreated into the countryside. Most of our troops have already redeployed, and they may well be back again. The battles of Tal Afar, like those in other areas of Iraq, have become seasonal offensives, where success is measured most often by the number of insurgents captured and killed. But that’s not success, and “sweeping and leaving” is not working.
Instead, we need to clear and stay. We can do this with a modified version of traditional counterinsurgency strategy. Dr. Andrew Krepinevich, AEI’s Tom Donnelly and Gary Schmitt and others have written about this idea. Whether called the “ink blot,” “oil spot,” or “safe haven” strategy, it draws upon successful counterinsurgency efforts in the past. Rather than focusing on killing and capturing insurgents, we should emphasize protecting the local population, creating secure areas where insurgents find it difficult to operate. Our forces would begin by clearing areas, with heavy force if necessary, to establish a zone as free of insurgents as possible. The security forces can then cordon off the zone, establish constant patrols, by American and Iraqi military and police, to protect the population from insurgents and common crime, and arrest remaining insurgents as they are found.
In this newly secure environment, many of the things critical to winning in Iraq can take place ”“ things that are not happening today. Massive reconstruction can go forward without fear of attack and sabotage. Political meetings and campaigning can take place in the open. Civil society can emerge. Intelligence improves, as it becomes increasingly safe for the population to provide tips to the security forces, knowing that they can do so without being threatened. The coalition must then act on this intelligence, increasing the speed at which it is transmitted to operational teams. Past practice has shown that “actionable intelligence” has a short shelf life, and the lag involved in communicating it to operators costs vital opportunities.
As these elements positively reinforce each other, the security forces then expand the territory under their control.
And check out a bit later in McCain’s essay when he mentions that Petraeus’s expertise was currently being wasted:
Keep senior officers in place. The Pentagon has adopted a policy of rotating our generals in and out of Iraq almost as frequently as it rotates the troops. General Petraeus, a fine officer who was the military’s foremost expert in the training of Iraqi security forces, now uses his hard earned experience and expertise at Fort Leavenworth.
It’s not surprising that most people are under the impression that McCain was only advocating an increase in troops without a change in tactics. Somehow the media failed to emphasize all of this, as blogger Dafyyd points out in a post at Big Lizards.
Not only has McCain been proven to know his stuff on this all-important score, but imagine the message the election of a President McCain would send to other countries such as Iran, who might be tempted to poke and prod at the perceived softness of a Clinton or Obama.
To those of you who say that it doesn’t matter because the prospect of an Iraq pullout won’t be an issue because, after all, it’s Congress who would pull the plug on Iraq, not a President—think again. The plug would have already been pulled—at least partly, beginning a Vietnam-like death of a thousand Congressional cuts—by the present Congress had it not been for the threat of a Bush veto or an actual veto. Can you imagine a Clinton or Obama veto of similar legislation? Dream on.
Congress is likely to remain Democratic or even become more so, and the party is likely to engineer an Iraq pullout before the Iraqis are fully ready to stand on their own feet in defending their country. McCain as President would prevent that from happening, just as Bush has.
If you don’t care about this issue, go right ahead and sit this one out, or vote for Clinton/Obama. And keep waiting for that magical candidate who will make it all better some day.
[ADDENDUM: My Sanity Squad colleague Dr. Sanity, whose conservative credentials are far better than mine, tells the anti-McCain crowd to get a grip.]
USing the price of oil for wordlwide security:
A McCain presidency sees $100/bbl oil
A Clinton presidency sees $150/bbl oil
An Obama Presidency sees $200/bbl oil
The latter two are the result of the manner and timing of our withdrawal from Iraq, and our enemies’ response to them.
I don’t think many Republicans would sit out the election if McCain were the Nominee. I do worry that if elected he would prove to be a Carter. Not in the same way but with the same lack of effectiveness.
The traditional angry man/maverick is usually extraordinariliy ineffective in getting hard things done by inspiring loyalty or building a real team. Fighting the long war will need both of these in spades!
If it is McCain tomorrow, the dumbest thing we could possibly do would be to take our ball and go home. We only have influence on events by keeping open the possibility that we mightbe willing to pull the lever for him next November. And our price is….?
Immigration? The right judges? Fiscal responsibility? We have only to name it, for my sense is that McCain will make the deals he must make in order to get the job.
I hope we all reach an agreement. The way the world is heading, Iraq is only the appetizer. .
My assertion(speculation) is McCain either does not understand small gov vs. big gov principles(and protections), or is too cynical to care about them.
I believe McCain’s support of national defense makes my point, as national defense is one principle McCain fully understands. Understanding an issue/principle leads to caring about it.
I suspect Sen. McCain doesn’t understand the concept of judicial restraint, as evidenced by his alleged comment (alleged by 4 unnamed witnesses speaking to John Fund and Robert Novak) that Justice Alito is “too conservative.”
Now, I do think someone can (maybe already is) educate Sen. McCain in this area. However, if Sen. McCain doesn’t strongly believe in judicial restraint, he is unlikely to fight the difficult fights to confirm such justices.
Sen. McCain definitely doesn’t agree with my interpretation of the importance of the First Amendment, as evidenced by this statement to Don Imus, quoted by Matt Welch in Reason Magazine:
Link to Welch article
http://www.reason.com/news/show/118937.html
If Sen. McCain doesn’t understand the importance of the First Amendment, can he understand the rest of the Bill of Rights? If Sen. McCain doesn’t understand judicial restraint, can he understand the Constitution?
Sen. McCain understands national defense. I commend him for it. I believe that understanding is a type of proof of my point that Sen. McCain shrewdly triangulates much of else (the principles of which he doesn’t understand or care about) for his political benefit.
Romney is getting desperate…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Hn2tTVjRo
See…that’s video proof right there…
A McCain presidency is probably better than a Clinton or Obama presidency, though I have not been sold on that yet. There’s still some serious research to do on that point. If we do get McCain into the Whitehouse, we’ll need to find a way to keep him on an extremely short leash. The trick, of course, is how? Traditionally, congress has doen that job, and I think we could rely on them to be their usual disorganized mess. But neither congress nor the supreme court, traditionally powerless in the presence of a popular president (“You have your court order; now enforce it!”), was capable of stopping McCain-Feingold. We will need to discover and implement more certain measures of securing a President McCain within acceptable pastures. Frankly, that probably wouldn’t be a bad idea just on general principles.
Neo, I’d hate to see you sent up the river for daring to blog something unflattering about President McCain within 60 days of the vote on his reelection.
Hey, I pulled the lever for dopey old Papa Bush and dopey old Bob Dole: No reason I can’t pull the lever for dopey old McCain….
I will gladly put my vote towards McCain this Tuesday, and if he takes the nomination, I hope the chattering classes in the Republican Party will come terms and accept it.
It is saddening to hear so many folks say they would never vote for McCain, and have no problem letting someone like Obama win. The fight against Islamism is real, and if you think McCain’s immigration policy and McCain/Fiengold trump the War in Iraq, then you never really cared about the fight to begin with.
I don’t need to consider McCain because I am in a solid blue state.
Isn’t it time to start thinking of the most reasonable, persuasive conservatives to serve as advisors and cabinet members to under McCain should he win the nomination? I’m not saying you have to vote for him in the primary, but if he is the candidate he will have to put together a government and these folks could have a big role in influencing policy.
Both parties have moved so far left that even JFK would be considered to be to the right of McCain.
McCain needs to earn support. He won’t. We need Cinncinatus, we deserve Hillary.
Well said, Queued.
We need, as one of my undergraduates once wrote on every page of her examination, “Mercy, not justice.”
McCain surge.
Stopped Clock.
I am stunned that in a time of war people would actually vote against a man like McCain over something like campaign finance reform. That is just absurd.
I heard Senator Coburn, conservative Republican from Oklahoma talking about this. He supports McCain, but he did not support finance reform. He said McCain may have been misguided about the bill, but his intent was to deal with the corruption he saw around him. His intentions were for cleaner government, that is why he has not used earmarks.
And I do not know anyone whose life has been effected by McCain Feingold, for most normal sane people it is not even on the radar.
But to certain conservatives this is a black mark against McCain. They are willing to believe that Romney, who supported gay marriage, strict gun control laws, mandatory health care…but could not bring himself to support the surge until he knew it would be a success..is the real conservative.
I have turned off Rush, and he will stay off. I don’t go to most blogs anymore, why bother? I think the real problem some people have with McCain is that they can not push him around. Now Mitt, they could control.
McCain is not some raving liberal, he never has been. He is a war hero, in spite of slanderous statements to the contrary. He deserves better than he is getting from the self anointed who think they own the party.
Sometimes I wonder if the real desire of the Rushes and the Anns is to turn the Republican party into some fringe group, they can run. Forget national appeal.
We have a responsibility to our soldiers, anyone who would abandon them does not need to be lecturing McCain on service to the country.
Queud:
And what do our soldiers deserve? and no the country has not moved left, the pundits have moved right and they are pissed that everyone else did not follow them.
Eisenhower was not a right wing ideologue, neither was Reagan . I doubt if either one of them could get Rush Limbaugh to support them today. Eisenhower with all his talk of the military industrial complex and Reagan with his amnesty, tax hikes and deals with the mullahs.
Roland:
The thing is half these people loved Fred Thompson and he supported McCain Feingold, the hypocrites, they are just looking for some excuse to abandon the party without admitting they are wussing out.
They can spare me the principled crap about how they believe in the First Amendment and McCain does not. McCain spent years in a POW camp because of his service to this country and he still believes in America, if that is not enough evidence that he supports the Constitution then there is no convincing this self righteous ideologues.
Terrye,
Asd much as you’d have to admire John McCain for his service and his sacrifice, having once been a POW is not, in fact evidence of unwavering support of the Constitution.
I don’t want to sound too much like a conspiracy theorist, but I think people like Rush and Coulter want the Republicans to lose the election in 08. There jobs are much easier when their party of choice doesn’t have the presidency and congress, and can simply wail against those in power.
Just think: where would they be without the Clinton years? Heck, they may even get a repeat! Then they can just recycle their old books and broadcasts for the next 4 years.
With McCain as pres., the Republican party will shift leftward to accommodate his leftist views. This will happen as he will be the de facto leader of the party. (Nixon even got support for his radical left wage & price controls from congressional Republicans).
This will move the entire nation even further to the left and marginalize conservatism to the kook fringe, a position from which it will take generations (if ever) to recover as it will have no legitimate political home.
A Hillary election creates a rallying point for conservatism (in and out of congress). This sets up a congressional force against her agenda as well as a breeding ground for new conservative thought and leadership.
The judiciary argument is a red herring. McCain has Warren Rudman (David Souter’s chief advocate) as his judiciary adviser.
None of this really worries me however as McCain, if he is the party nominee, will not win the general election.
When Democrats & all liberals are faced with the choice between a hard left, Marxist liberal & a soft core liberal, they will vote for the hard core liberal. Conservatives will stay away in droves & there simply are not enough moderates to carry the day for McCain.
Roland Dodds: You don’t have to be a conspiracist to believe there’s some truth in what you say. Rush and Coulter are not the epitome of idealism. They are business people. I wouldn’t doubt they think they are also doing the conservative wing of the Republican party a service, but at the same time each is renowned for looking out for #1.
Neo:
“I wouldn’t doubt they think they are also doing the conservative wing of the Republican party a service, but at the same time each is renowned for looking out for #1.”
As is “the Maverick” I suppose you can say. It doesnt make what Rush or other “business people” say about McCain any less valid, and part of that is reminding us that according to McCain, those of us wanting stricter border security are racist.
I think Ann C. is dead on:
John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most “electable” Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn’t lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk.
Yep, but like I said, I voted for Bod Dole’s stupid old falling-off-the-podium ass.
I’m used to this–in my lifetime the Stupid Republicans have never given me a candidate to vote for.
My first vote was for gun-controlling, read-my-lips-tax-raising Papa Bush. And he lost.
My second vote was for nice dopey old Bob Dole, and he lost.
I voted for W, not ‘cuz I liked him, but ‘cuz I just hate Algore. I voted for him the second time ‘cuz the dirty, dirty leftists hated him.
Now I’ll vote for angry old tax-raising, free-speech stomping, bribe-taking McCainiac.
And despite all the posturing, threatening and bloviating, so will the rest of the conservatives.
Don’t expect me to be happy about it.
But, Obama al Hussein?! Billary? Again!?
So knock off the bellyaching you poor little idealists, bend over and take it like a Republican!
Eric Scheie over at Classical Values suggests that many of the conservatives against McCain are looking for a place to make a stand and show the other Republicans how ticked they are. They believe that the Republicans have drifted Beltway since 1994 and want an excuse – I mean, an opportunity – to make a complaint. Some went the Ron Paul route, while an overlapping group has decided McCain should be made an example of.
As we haven’t had a real conservative as president since Coolidge, there seems something quixotic about all this.
McCain any less valid, and part of that is reminding us that according to McCain, those of us wanting stricter border security are racist.
No, you’re just trying to push water uphill.
It doesn’t matter who gets elected, there will be some form of ‘guest worker program’ which will include amnesty for the people busing your dishes, cutting your lawn and fluffing your hotel pillows.
Boomers didn’t have enough kids: We are reaping what they didn’t sow….
Ah, well, if it doesnt matter who gets elected maybe staying home to watch Sponge Bob is not a bad idea after all. But since Im free to have a vote, I’m going to vote my ideals and my principals and I’ll thank the lot of you from telling me that its nothing more than a tantrum or teaching anybody a lesson.
Oh, BTW Gray, quit giving us boomers crap or we’ll take it all with us.
sheesh! ungrateful kids.
Oh, BTW Gray, quit giving us boomers crap or we’ll take it all with us.
As long as you take the geezer rockstars with you.
I guess you could always leave it to your landscaper, Juan. Hahahaha!
Sometimes I wish Id never given birth to you.
um, in the figurative and collective sense naturally.
Sometimes I wish Id never given birth to you.
um, in the figurative and collective sense naturally.
Hahaha! Well, not me. My dad was a Korean era vet.
Gen X is a pretty cynical bunch, but as a group, we are remarkably conservative–unlike McManiac….
Here’s what The Maha Rushie actually said, in his all-caring, all-knowing way….
With Talent on loan from Gawd:
On Monday’s show, Limbaugh asserted that McCain has “lied about his reason for opposing the Bush tax cuts,” and added: “I think McCain has an animus toward the Republican Party. I think ever since South Carolina 2000 he’s had it in for the Republican Party, and one of his objectives is to destroy it and change it.”
Yep. I agree with that assessment.
However, Bob Dole, who won a narrow victory for president against no one, chastised El Rushbo:
In a letter released Monday evening by McCain’s campaign, Dole strongly defended the senator’s conservative credentials, noting that his voting record is opposed to abortion and supportive of gun-owner rights.
Good enough for me. “You had me at ‘gun owners rights’.”
It’s an interesting thing–if the NRA supports him, and they better, we’ll see what kind of pull the NRA actually has within its own base.
TMJUtah: McCain surge. Stopped Clock.
Four or so years ago I wrote that I was tempted to vote for George W. Bush for foreign policy reasons, but that I was reluctant to do so because I didn’t like his domestic agenda.
You read me the riot act in my comments section.
Do I need to quote you back to yourself?
You right-wingers can be like the Sunnis in Iraq and boycott the election if you want. It’s a free country. But if McCain wins without you, he’ll really screw you as president. You will have no representation. He won’t owe you jack because he didn’t need you. (Four years from now you might want to consider a question: How’s that workin’ for ya?)
The center can govern without the right-wing if that’s what you want, and is prepared to do so. Your move.
Terry: This will move the entire nation even further to the left and marginalize conservatism to the kook fringe
That will definitely happen if you take your ball and go home.
You guys are marginalizing yourselves. McCain is polling better than everyone else among Republicans.
Bill Whittle said something I’d like to repeat: You are no more a Republican than anyone else who is registered as a Republican. You need to understand that.
I have had another dream!
It is real. When I first awoke it didn’t seem possible it was about the election, but it soon became clear it was.
I find myself back in college near graduation. We are given choices of what appears to be doing reports on weird books, but it turns out the choice is between projects which are comprised of pre-existing strange looking artifacts. They are clownish looking things, they look like they are miniatures made up by veteran producers of the Flintstone and Survivor TV shows.
The projects are due soon and we must complete them in a group. I am pulled in to one by a familiar and desperate looking face. I examine the artifacts with the experience of a middle aged man and conclude that this test is not what was intended. I think about what the professors must really have in mind. We are about to enter a new world, how do we all react?
I only got a good look at one of the projects, but it was clear the other projects were the same sort of test.
I still have no plan to vote McCain in November and won’t need to, I live in a solid blue state.
I raise a Tiger Hawk for your Jeff Jacoby, Neo.
IT IS NOT news that much of the conservative base bitterly opposes John McCain and is appalled that the man they consider a Republican apostate could soon be the GOP’s presidential nominee.
If that is the primary leading point for why people support McCain, then it is not nearly as justifiable given that much of the conservative base does not oppose John McCain because of those points.
There’s no particular reason why supporters of McCain should focus on the weakest arguments against McCain, is there?
McCain’s conservatism has usually been more a matter of gut instinct than of a rigorous intellectual worldview, and he has certainly deviated from Republican orthodoxy on some serious issues. For all that, his ratings from conservative watchdog groups have always been high. “Even with all the blemishes,” notes National Review, a leading journal on the right (and a backer of Romney), “McCain has a more consistent conservative record than Giuliani or Romney. . . . This is an abiding strength of his candidacy.”
Which obviously contradicts the main line that people who don’t support McCain but do support Romney, is doing so for conservative purist reasons.
And if you disregard the support for Romney totally, then what is the point of pointing out that people dislike McCain and won’t vote for him? If they won’t vote for any other Republican nominee, then why would their refusal to vote be a problem to the conservatives or the country?
Time and again he has taken an unpopular stand and stuck with it, putting his career on the line when it would have been easier to go along with the crowd.
People have got to be serious now. They can’t be tagging the demagogue line like that. The author expects me to believe that mcCain would have lost politically if Bush ignored him and stayed with Casey’s strategy of limited footprint and patrols?
McCain is in the Senate, they wouldn’t have cared over much what failures Bush was doing because he didn’t “listen” to McCain. McCain had much to lose if Iraq was lost, but it wasn’t political losses.
The fact that his instincts aren’t conducive to “going along with the crowd” would also contradict the view that McCain is middle of the road in the making of compromises to get a majority of support, now doesn’t it. It simply repeats Bush’s vice and virtue, which is his stubborn refusal to admit being wrong. Yet for all that McCain spoke about the surge to the President, McCain’s stubborness couldn’t convince the President’s stubborness to backdown.
Which means whatever bad decisions McCain makes, he won’t correct. He won’t correct it because, like Bush, he feels personal loyalty to someone who needs to be fired, like Tenet, or maybe he won’t correct it because he’ll never admit that his position had problems that needed fixing.
Romney’s ability to compromise and work in executive positions is very different from McCain’s gut instinct approach to rock hard stubborness.
That is just absurd.
What’s even more absurd is that you can take people who will vote for McCain but don’t like his Senate policies, and turn them into people that would vote against McCain.
His intentions were for cleaner government, that is why he has not used earmarks.
You don’t really care about people’s intentions, terryE.
And I do not know anyone whose life has been effected by McCain Feingold, for most normal sane people it is not even on the radar.
Soros and MoveOn are not on the radar? Maybe to you they aren’t.
But to certain conservatives this is a black mark against McCain.
Certain conservatives that matter a whole heck of a lot to you, but not much to me.
They are willing to believe that Romney, who supported gay marriage, strict gun control laws, mandatory health care…but could not bring himself to support the surge until he knew it would be a success..is the real conservative.
Or maybe, just maybe, people are supporting Romney because they believe he is the best candidate for the nation, not because of an “intent” to get a conservative purist into office.
How’s that zealotry been working out for you terryE?
He is a war hero, in spite of slanderous statements to the contrary.
You pulling a Kerry on us, Terry?
He deserves better than he is getting from the self anointed who think they own the party.
As opposed to you, stating that Romney isn’t conservative enough for you? I think you need to put that mirror aside.
We have a responsibility to our soldiers, anyone who would abandon them does not need to be lecturing McCain on service to the country.
You just lectured families with people in the military just a few days ago, TerryE. Who do you think you are kidding here?
Yeah yamar, I love this:
“Time and again he has taken an unpopular stand and stuck with it, putting his career on the line when it would have been easier to go along with the crowd.”
Yet those of us desiring a better conservative candidate are mere extremists and should just shut the f*ck up and throw it in for “the Maverick”.
I tend to see party loyalty, that being voting for your party’s nomination, as a thing secondary to principle or tertiary to it.
For one thing, just because you are part of a party, like the Republicans, doesn’t mean your principles over rights or war are now suddenly in their hands. It is always your choice to make, which is why people can vote for Democrat Presidents when registered as Republicans and vote for Republican Presidents when registered as Democrats. Although not just because they want their own party’s candidate to lose. It must also be, like with Reagan and Arnold, because they believe in and like the other party’s candidate.
Concerning Republican party loyalty, it is a valid criticism of Coulter and Rush for their rhetorical flourishes feeding the divide between conservatives and Republicans. If they don’t like mcCain, then they should make the case for Romney or some other candidate of their choice. Ideology is useless without practical applications.
The same applies to people like terryE that wants us to support McCain over other nominees. They have to start giving practical reasons, not just ideological cant about Romney’s Mass. policies, for us to support McCain.
Otherwise it is just a fight between conservatives over who is more conservative, McCain or Hillary or Romney. And that’s just ridiculous.
Getting behind the candidate of your party, is a thing of political expedience. It has little to do with principle, at least the principle of greater loyalty to the United States and the Constitution. It is just what people need to do if they want to win elections, and people do want to win. As Michael Totten said, McCain will have no reason, other than principle, to represent people who never voted for him. And I doubt McCain will be another Bush in the aspect of reaching out his hand to Democrats and people who didn’t vote for him, in order to heal the divide in this nation. McCain’s personality doesn’t seem like that, as noted by Totten in the predictions about McCain’s treatment of conservatives that opted out of supporting McCain.
Presidents are supposed to represent the entire country, but the reality doesn’t go that way. They may try hard or they may not try at all, but in the end, there are going to be people dissatisfied. For good and bad reasons. You should hear what my engineering field contemporaries are saying about Bush and the history of the Republican party.
They talking about how Obama will be assassinated, like JFK, because Obama plans on changing things conservatives don’t like.
I’ve found much of the anti-McCain “surge” off-putting. There’s an arrogance in assuming that those Republicans/Conservatives who support McCain are insufficiently conservative/insufficiently informed/generally delusional.
However, Andrew McCarthy has made the best anti-McCain case. I don’t necessarily agree with all his points, but they don’t presume that someone supporting McCain is delusional. His points are serious and need to be addressed or refuted.
(I will probably still vote for McCain next Tuesday. But my resolve has been shaken a bit.)
I’m your garden-variety libertarian who’s registered independent and is voting in favor of Obama in the primary, and am doing so for an essentially conservative reason: a term in office for Obama would do more to shut the mouths of pandering crackers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson than anything else I can think of. I think it would be great to display proof that, “the system” can work just fine for someone who puts their nose to the grindstone instead of expecting handouts from the Dems — handouts never elevated anyone into the middle class.
If it comes down to McCain versus Lady Macbeth, though, I’ll certainly vote for McCain. He’s the only republican I’d consider voting for, as the others are all Gingrich-y, and the Gingrich revolution is why I’m no longer registered Republican. For anyone other than McCain (or Paul), voting to spank the NeoCons is something I can buy into; but he isn’t a neocon, and I’d be happy to have him in office.
It’s as simple as this: Obama or Hillary would both be disastrous. McCain or Romney would just be unfortunate. It’s not a matter of party or principle, it’s a matter of rampant, incompetent Socialism vs. something else slightly less offensive. It’s not a vote for as much as a vote against.
Mr. Totten, please hold that href=”http://threeroundsbrisk.blogspot.com/2008/02/incoming.html”>thought.
Cripes. Sorry for the format error.
We’ve been looking for this super hero to take care of the country while we go about our affairs, but it doesn’t work that way, not this time. We have to be on the politicians’ tails constantly, Hillary, Obama, McCain, Romney, whoever, watching their every move.
A disasterous government, which I am resigned to, will make us better Citizens. So maybe some good from come out of all this.
The center can govern without the right-wing if that’s what you want, and is prepared to do so. Your move.
So it doesn’t really matter whether we vote for McCain or not.
Since when did mainstream republicans become ‘right-wing’ ‘cuz they reject a blowhard populist whose only revolt was against the mainstream republicans?
There is some weird realignment going on here, and nobody has expressed it yet.
Or maybe it’s just another chance to throw the silly Christers under the bus so that the sophisticates will like us…..
So how did you like McCainiac pulling out the ‘Chickenhawk’ card on Romney?
As a currently serving member of the National Guard I find that offensive–I was resigned to voting for McQueeq in the general election, but I’m starting to squirm.
McCain sucks, he has always sucked, he has never not sucked and his defenders can only defend him by denigrating other Republicans.
Michael is just making the point, as I have made, that if you want influence in politics, you need to “buy into” it. In this case, that means voting for McCain if he is the nominee. Whether he supports McCain or not, isn’t really relevant. Although it might be.
“McCain sucks, he has always sucked, he has never not sucked and his defenders can only defend him by denigrating other Republicans.”
Many do, and they clearly feel quite proud of themselves while doing so. It’s a very…leftist kinda thing to do..which only reinforces what many say about McCain and his supporters.
As for the screaming about idiots who won’t vote for him…mixed with shouts to just go away, the R -party doesn’t need you..that combination tells you all you need to know. Good luck in the general election.
(Of course, everybody isn’t engaging in this sophomoric rhetoric. Some, like Neo are playing it straight, trying to convince with facts.)
SoccerDad’s link is a good one.
SoccerDad’s link is a good one.
I read it, for what it’s worth….
Speculating on what McCainiac might do based on what he said is a non-starter.
Not even McCain knows what he might do in a given situation, or even twice in the same situation.
I didn’t even vote in the NM primary. I’m voting against Obama al Hussein and Billary in the general.
Well, this is a little late, but here goes.
Neo, as for McCain and his insight into the ‘Clear and hold’ surge strategy, you almost had me there. Then I realized that-
Even while the idea was being promoted (McCain was not the only one), it had to be sold through the Pentagon and preparations made. The military is rather slow moving when it comes to major strategic shifts.
You then gave us this quote from McCain’s Nov 05 essay:
“General Petraeus, a fine officer who was the military’s foremost expert in the training of Iraqi security forces, now uses his hard earned experience and expertise at Fort Leavenworth.”
Basically proof that he was using this as a bludgeon against Bush. Petraeus was out of Iraq and in Fort Leavenworth to write the COIN manual that our commanders in the field now reference. McCain surely knew this, so it was an opportunistic whack at Bush, nothing more
Then of course, there is the idea that you’ve discussed in the past that, without the horror of letting the Iraqis see what supporting AQ was like, they night not have been ready to support us in the awakening. McCain might actually have tried to use the tactics too early for them to actually be productive. We might have suffered greater losses (which is typical of increased offensive activities), and that might have given the Dems the leverage they needed to force us out.
As for ““Even with all the blemishes,” notes National Review, a leading journal on the right (and a backer of Romney), “McCain has a more consistent conservative record than Giuliani or Romney. . . . This is an abiding strength of his candidacy.””
Now, I’m not one of these people who paints McCain as a ‘leftist’, but what troubles me about him vs. Romney or Giuliani is his trajectory. He is going from solid right to unpredictable maverick centrist. Romney and Giuliani have either been predictably consistant or moved consistently right.
I think I’ve said it before, but it begs repeating- My concern with McCain isn’t what I know he’ll do, it’s that I have no idea what he’ll actually do.
I guess it’s time to close my eyes and roll the dice.
Pingback:Winning versus Purity | Better Living Thru Blogging!
Bullshit walks, McCain talks a lot of it. Let’s send more troops to Iraq for another hundred years for nothing. There is no war on terrorism. And you’re and idiot if you believe it. Nick Rockefeller admitted to it being a fraud. And it certainly couldn’t be stopped, it’s like this fiat war on drug b/s that has been going on for the past 40 years, absolutely no progress. The economy is going down hill fast, due the federal reserve, McCain isn’t going to do anything about that, he doesn’t care about the American people otherwise he’d be another “lonely” like Ron Paul. The only real Republican, the only one who truly believes in our rights. You are all idiots to vote for anyone other than Ron Paul. You just prove your ignorance of understanding the true structure of the United States, you all have forgotten your place as an American. The land of the free! “People should not fear their gov’t, gov’t should fear the people”. I am highly doubtful that any of you have done the slightest bit of “research” (not watching the news, doesn’t count, you are just rotting your brain out) on any of these candidates. A real American Patriot would for Ron Paul, for he is a man of integrity, honor, and stands behind the Constitution of the United States. You’re all idiots to believe any other candidate but Ron Paul is going to make a difference. They all work for the puppet master. And so do you.
Ron Paul 2008!! WAKE UP AMERICA!!! There are real issues to be addressed. I sure as hell want someone running the country who knows what the hell he’s talking about.
Yeah let me vote for Ron paul!!!
Being called an “idiot” by a Ron Paul supporter has totally opened my eyes to the suitable of the Ron Paul movement to lead this country!!!!
LETS CALL EVERYONE NAMES AND SAVE THE COUNTRY
RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL
oh I forgot..
DOCTOR RON PAUL DOCTOR RON PAUL DOCTOR RON PAUL DOCTOR RON PAUL DOCTOR RON PAUL DOCTOR RON PAUL DOCTOR RON PAUL DOCTOR RON PAUL DOCTOR RON PAUL DOCTOR RON PAUL DOCTOR RON PAUL
sometimes spongebob is stingy and annoying..,