Quibbling with McCain
I Will Vote For Romney. For Now.
By California Yankee Posted in 2008 | Endorsement | John McCain | Mitt Romney — Comments (53) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I've been writing about the 2008 presidential campaign since April 2005. During that entire time I have been determined to remain uncommitted. I thought that would make for more objective observations about the campaign. It is also an admission that no candidate came along, whom I felt compelled to support.
As the number of possible nominees has dwindled, especially with Fred and Rudy proving that you can't leave the field to opponents and still prevail, I tried to warm up to Senator McCain. After McCain's South Carolina and Florida victories, it is clear he has again attained the dreaded status of front runner.
Embracing McCain ought to be easy for a security voter like me. If your main issue is victory in the War the Islamic Extremists are waging against us, supporting McCain should not be a difficult thing.
Yet I have quibbles with Senator McCain. And they're not going away, even with the Florida results and the Giuliani and Schwarzenegger endorsements.
Read on.
There are the usual policy quibbles, which have been repeated so often they have become cliche. Yet like all cliches, they are based on truth:
I continue to wonder if President Bush's tax cuts would now be permanent if only Senator McCain supported the tax cuts in 2001.
I object to the 2002 McCain/Feingold so-called campaign finance reform, which I still consider an abominable infringement on my constitutional rights, even though the Supreme Court says it isn't.
There is also the McCain/Kennedy so-called immigration reform, both versions -- the 2005 edition and the 2007 McCain/Kennedy II -- amount to little more than a dressed up amnesty that like the failed 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act will encourage additional illegal immigration.
More recently, we have been forced to grapple with the McCain/Lieberman Gore-like energy tax that is somehow suppose to magically reverse global climate change.
Even so, as I said, a week ago I was thinking I could set these quibbles aside and support Senator McCain's presidential candidacy. Then the Senator went Hillary -- telling lies about Mitt Romney's position on Iraq. Even in the face of Romney's objections and denials, McCain repeated this criticism in the Reagan Library debate the other night.
Senator McCain, on NBC's "Meet the Press," said that last year Romney wanted to set a secret timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. That plan, similar to what Democrats have proposed, would lead to a victory for al-Qaeda. Romney, on CNN's "Late Edition," said McCain's description of his position was "dishonest." I'm going to rely on upon Paul Mirengoff's "Did he or didn't he?" post to resolve this dispute between the two presidential contenders:
McCain apparently is referring to a statement Romney made last April in which he assumed President Bush and the head of the Iraqi government might discuss timetables and troop levels in Iraq. I don't think Romney's statement fairly can be construed as advocating setting a date for our withdrawal.
I take Mirengoff's post to mean Romney was saying let's see if the surge works and be prepared for it not to. He also says Mitt was definitely less gung-ho than McCain on the surge. Mirengoff's conclusions are also supported by Byron York's "McCain, Romney, and Timetables" post. This presents me with yet another quibble about McCain. This one about my most important issue -- achieving victory in the war the Islamic extremists are waging against us.
There is more to Mirengoff's post, and he credits McCain for being right about Iraq and advocating an approach to Iraq that is "essentially the one that’s working now." So I thought maybe I could overlook this quibble as well. Then I started to think seriously about McCain as Commander in Chief. The more I look into what Senator McCain has actually advocated in Iraq the more quibbles I have about supporting his presidential candidacy.
I may vote for Governor Romney on Tuesday. But I understand the reality of the situation, and that pretty soon my choice will be not between Romney and McCain, but between McCain and Hillary (or Obama). So I hereby pose my quibbles to Senator McCain in the hopes that he will rise to this challenge and make his case to this security voter as to why Senator McCain should be Commander in Chief.
Senator McCain has consistently advocated the deployment of many more troops into Iraq. The Senator's version of a surge envisioned some 100,000 additional troops, and he has been all over Donald Rumsfeld for failing to deploy such a large additional force as early as 2004. Here, I have another problem with McCain's position. We simply don't have enough combat brigades and Marine equivalents to throw into the fight in the numbers the Senator insistently says we should have.
With troops tied down in Central European bases, Bosnia and South Korea, and still others fighting in Afghanistan, the combat units required to make the deployments advocated by Senator McCain don't exist. He has advocated increasing the size of the armed forces, but the additional troops such increases might have produced would not have been available at the time Mr. McCain wanted to deploy them.
The 30,000 or so troops that were used for the surge pretty much used all the available forces. Note that Army Chief of Staff George Casey recently declared that the surge has "sucked all the flexibility" out of the system in a year. General Casey predicts that much of the lost flexibility will be restored if the troops can be drawn down over the next six months, but the current enhanced deployment level is not sustainable for a long period of time. In an encouraging sign, the New York Times quotes Defense Secretary Gates as saying by next summer the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq will be reduced to 15.
Senator McCain has opposed the redeployment of troops out of Germany and South Korea. In doing so he ensures that those forces cannot be used in the current war. I know Senator McCain has called for increasing the armed forces, but given the time it would take to recruit, train and deploy these still on-paper troops, how does he answer the quibble of how he would have staffed his enhanced version of the surge?
I'm willing to give Senator McCain credit for advocating a change in strategy in Iraq. Perhaps he can make an argument that we should have done it sooner. I'm not sure that he can, it seems to me that the key to the success of the surge was a lot of hard work -- blood sweat and tears -- in the years leading up to the surge. More Iraqi forces had been trained to a level where they could be effectively used to support counterinsurgency strategy being used by General Petraeus. The Anbar awakening occurred before the deployment of the surge troops making it more likely the surge would succeed. Plopping down another 100,000 or so troops, even if such numbers were available, years earlier as advocated by Senator McCain may not have had the same effect in 2004 as did the 30,000 troops surged in 2007.
I also have a problem with Senator McCain pinning the perceived lack of instant success in Iraq on Rumsfeld. He has come up with a very simplistic story that Rumsfeld was bad and Petreaus is good. But successful counterinsurgency campaigns take time. A lot of time. More than a year. Everyone, including Senator McCain is willing to credit General Petraeus with the success of the surge. But maybe we should look at the General's first two tours in Iraq for the secrets of his success, and maybe we should consider who promoted General Petraeus, more than once, and who recommended General Petraeus to be the Iraq commander--the very same Donald Rumsfeld that McCain vilifies.
I could go on here, but I think I've made my point, which is that McCain takes too much credit for the surge, especially since I'm not sure he was as involved in the strategy shift as he says he was. This makes me wonder about how he will behave as Commander in Chief. Will the military appreciate his eagerness to grab the limelight and denigrate the long, difficult and frequently unpopular work that leads to success in a mission like Iraq?
I certainly admire the Senator's service during Vietnam, and I respect him as a hero. Nevertheless I don't think he has demonstrated that he is more qualified to be the civilian commander in chief than has Romney. Nor do I think his decades in the Senate and his experience leading a naval air squadron is the type of executive experience I want to see in a president.
Therefore, as things now stand, when I step up to the voting machine on super Tuesday, I will be registering my vote for Mitt Romney. He has executive experience, both in the private sector, where he made a fortune turning around troubled companies, in the public sector as a successful governor and don't forget his rescue of the Salt Lake City Olympics.
I don't find the Governor's positions on Iraq objectionable. Nor do I find the fact that he has changed certain views over the years to be a bad thing. I tend to prefer the newer views and appreciate that he saw the need to change. But I will also give John McCain his fair shake, and I would like to know how he would answer my quibbles, should he chance to see them.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | John McCain: He's Always There When He Needs Us — Comments (43) »
Quibbling with McCain 53 Comments (0 topical, 53 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
This is a great post with some great comments. Thank you, and God bless you for this.
I think it's also important to note that as security voters, we need to look at the full picture of national security. Not just the surge in Iraq.
For example McCain opposes water boarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques that have helped prevented dozens of attacks. He has even said he will not use them in the case of the ticking time bomb.
Romney supports these tactics, and doing whatever it takes to keep America safe.
Then there is the issue of Guantanemo Bay. McCain like the liberals wants to shut it down and move the terrorists into the American justice system and grant them ACLU lawyers. This is a disaster!
Romney will keep the base going, and expand it if necessary. In many ways Romney is the stronger candidate in security then McCain. Just because McCain has military experience does not make him better, after all Jack Murtha is a vet too.
Romney-Santorum 08 or
Romney-Thompson 08
In reality this is a lot closer to my view of Mitt Romney and I want people to keep an open mind as they go into February 5. I just cannot accept the idea that McCain can have a slam dunk. I'm prepared to fight for Romney until that point and then, in the fullness of time, I'll support whichever nominee emerges.
But Romney deserves better than what he's gotten so far from RedState and I think he'll live up to that challenge as President. I'm not turning him away. I want Mitt Romney to be the President that this blog and other conservatives can endorse instead of attacking -- because some perceptive people have noted that he's going to need the support.
I think we can brandish the swords and fight back those attacks if we're willing to do it. I'm not ceding anything to either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton yet. On all of the things that matter, Mitt Romney is a better candidate than either of them for the United States. They're going to smear. They're going to hit back hard. But in the end I think Romney is competitive even against that onslaught.
And I can tell you one thing: when he becomes the President after the fight, Mitt Romney will do what he's said as a campaigner. It's hard for me to describe why I have that faith in him, but I do. I think the man is here to stay and he wants our help and he'll live up to the obligations.
You have just eloquently explained how my service in Iraq and the events and rhetoric surrounding the surge is actually the reason I have so much against John McCain. I have posted some of these things before, but you said it much better than I have -
"I'm not sure that he can, it seems to me that the key to the success of the surge was a lot of hard work -- blood sweat and tears -- in the years leading up to the surge. More Iraqi forces had been trained to a level where they could be effectively used to support counterinsurgency strategy being used by General Petraeus. The Anbar awakening occurred before the deployment of the surge troops making it more likely the surge would succeed."
That says it all. Many American Soldiers and Marines have done the hard work, most of it before the surge started in Spring/Summer 2007. The narrative that suits John McCain "Everything sucked, the surge fixed it all because it was my idea" is not only incorrect, but it is a slap in the face to all those who sacrificed before the start of the surge, and in so doing, made the surge success possible.
As some here know I am working on my new project over at freedomdefended.org. As valuable as this debate here is, what I'm working on over there seems more meaningful in the long-term.
Not only that, some of the stuff here gives me heartburn. I am back though, and am very glad I read this piece by california yankee.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Thanks for serving for us!
Not being involved in the Iraq war in a deep or meaningful way has left me out of the details. McCain is often times given a free pass on all things Military, and I have often wondered why. Hearing his proposals and digesting them do leave the impression of over exuberance and lack of restraint. Perhaps being the nations favored son for so long has given him a case of "Child Star Syndrome", which leaves him needing more than what a calm and practical approach awards. My brother will be under his watch if he wins, so the answers to your questions are just as important to me. We need an adult as President, someone who does not need to seek reward from others but has built a firm sense of himself from his success in his family, business, religion, and politics. McCain is not that guy.
Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now.
-White Goodman
Your last paragraph does indeed say it all. As for me I will take your testimony over any spin anyone else wants to put up. Thank you for your service.
Blows a hole in the myth that "stay the course" was a failure.
Shines a light on McCain in front of the microphones (along with his Democrat friends) telling us how much Bush and his strategy sucked at the time support was softening and continuing the war was in peril.
Commander in Chief indeed.
Everything you say is true, but even if McCain were proposing the exact thing we are now successfully doing, does he deserve any credit for it? I doubt Bush is/was listening to McCain. Petraeus, Kagan, Gates, et al -- even Bush -- deserve the credit. Maybe some "I told you so" props, but no credit for the success.
If I yell from my recliner that Romo should throw a deep pass to TO and the Cowboys score, do I get any credit? Jason Garrett doesn't listen to me....
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing." Fred D. Thompson
The dismememberment of McCain's "Iraq Policy" is fantastic. He's getting credit for advocating for the war, when in fact all he was doing was blathering against Bush and Rumsfeld to get good press. His opposition to moving troops out of Europe is especially galling.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
of the surge, the only *successful* part of the war:
"After the (mosque) "bombing, NSC officials were increasingly dubious. They weren't alone. General Keane kept in contact with retired and active Army officers, including Petraeus, who believed the war could be won with more troops and a population protection, or counterinsurgency, strategy--but not with a small footprint. At the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, a former West Point professor (and a current WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor), Frederick Kagan, was putting together a detailed plan to secure Baghdad. But the loudest voice for a change in Iraq was Senator John McCain of Arizona. He and his sidekick, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, traveled repeatedly to Iraq. McCain badgered Bush and Hadley with phone calls urging more troops and a different strategy. Together, McCain, Keane, Petraeus, the network of Army officers, and Kagan provided a supportive backdrop for adopting a new strategy."
Fred barnes' piece at WS -- worth reading as reading it would perhaps limit the numbers of moronic posts here.
face it -- mcain was one of the authors of the surge and your guy (whoever that might be) wasn't. It astounds me that people are questioning McCain on national security issues. But, keep it up -- it's good for laughs.
I want names, dates and times of these meetings of war strategy that the great General McCain was holding and Petreaus was attending.
You are claiming that Petreaus was in mutiny. McCain was the CinC and along with Keane, Petreaus and a network of officers formed a shadow DOD while Bush, Cheney and SecDef Gates either willingly sat in the corner or were unaware? ABSURD!
After the hell that Bush has gone through over the prosecution of this war and and the price paid in life and limb by our men and women in uniform I will not sit by and watch you give credit to an opportunistic politician.
I want to see your claims backed up.
You also should read Hooah Mac's post#4.
perhaps you should email him with your requests
didn't post this at RS. She made the claims on her own without a link. Do you want to take over and back all that crap up?
listen anyway?
serious question
Just make sure it is air tight facts and not rumor and retoric.
Petreaus has been credited with being the architect. I have never heard him offer up McCains' name as being co-anything.
Petreaus is an honorable man who surely would don't you think.
McCain has never claimed more than supporting it, although he shamelessly hints that he is to be given some kind of credit.
If he was the author of it he wouldn't be holding back. He would scream it from the rooftops with his ego.
Prove it. I'll listen.
of the new strategy
to my knowledge, frederick kagan, gen. keene, and gen. petraeus were the ones most responsible for it
but i agree with barnes that mccain was one of the most important figures in creating the environment for the new strategy. he'd been calling for it since late 2003 - not just "more troops," but a real counter-insurgency strategy with clear and hold operations and additional forces.
here's a quote from a speech he made in november 2003 to the council on foreign relations
"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."
http://www.johnmccain.com/fie/timeline.htm
second, he was crucial to defending the war effort against a very-nearly-successful assault by the defeatists this past spring and summer, which gave gen. petraeus more time to make the new strategy work.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODI3YjdjNTVlM2QyMzNjOTg5MjkyNjEwMTI...
i know this second point is tangential to the question of who can claim credit for the new strategy, but i think it is worth mentioning as a further contribution to our growing success in iraq.
did claim that he is one of the authors and that is what set me off. Read her last paragraph. He keeps stepping close enough for people like her to start saying it for him and next thing you know more people believe it.
Yes he has been a supporter of the war along with about half of the American people. Depending which poll you believe.
Without our support the Dems would have defunded anyway.
I have heard some claim that too many troops could have been adverse in that we would never have gotten local support due to being seen as an occupation force.
I'm not sure about that but McCain has the luxury of that possibility never being known. The fact is four years of hard fighting and sacrifice by our troops turned it around not McCain. Read Hooah Mac up thread. He was there.
and i don't agree with the claim that mccain was the author, nor did i try to defend it. i was defending barnes's position.
it doesn't look as if you responded to the points i made, however. again, mccain wasn't just calling for more troops, he was calling for a new strategy, and he started doing it in november 2003. and he continued calling for these things for the next few years. that was prescient, brave, and very exceptional.
but the fact that you belittle mccain's support for the war by equating it to the support that "half of the american people" have shown indicates to me that you are not open to being persuaded.
Just that his support for the war was not unique or any more brave than the American people and many members of congress.
What was so brave and exceptional? At age 70 he may lose his Senate seat and have to go home? Big Whoop!
I will save "brave and very exceptional" for the troops not a U.S. Senator.
and won't again since you still haven't responded with any arguments or evidence
i'll end with one additional point: you object to septembergurl's extreme claim that mccain was the author of the new strategy, and i agree that the claim goes too far.
but you believe in a much more extreme claim - that mccain deserves no more credit than anyone else for developing and defending the new strategy.
septembergurl's claim was an overenthusiastic interpretation of the facts. your position is a denial of the facts.
I am the one who asked for proof.
All you have provided is a story told in your own words with no back up at all. Not good enough. Don't try to shift the burden of proof to me. I have made no claims.
What facts am I denying? None have been provided. Links? Anything? Every Dem in America was/is calling for a change of course. Give me someting concrete with backup.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/quibbling_with_mccain#com...
and robert kagan (brother of frederick) agrees:
"The president's decision to buck conventional wisdom and overwhelming political pressure (including from within his own party), and rule out a drawdown of forces, and indeed to go in the opposite direction and surge forces - this will go down in history as a rare moment of political leadership. It will certainly go down as a critical turning point in American history. And everyone knows McCain played a key role in that effort, working closely with Jack Keane and Fred Kagan to help influence the administration and then leading the public battle, along with Joe Lieberman."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard/2008/02/robert_ka...
All of these links are just stories written by a brother and other writers. First I have heard of Kagen but if he is the author of the surge then Petreaus needs to say so and give him the credit. Is that your claim?
As far as McCains web site I have agreed all along that McCain has supported the troops. Along with millions of us.
As for the change in strategy all the dems including Joe Biden have been calling for a change for years. When a war is going bad calling for something new is not brave and very exceptional. In fact it was very common.
and very exceptional during his service in Vietnam.
I am literally with Ann Coulter at this point. I'd vote for Hillary first. That way there would be no surprises or shockers for four years.
I wouldnt take a leak on McCain if he were on fire much less cast a vote for POTUS for him!
1. "The Surge" is not simply additional troops as you imply in your comment. It is a comprehensive strategy develpoed by Gen P.
2. What McCain was calling for was "more troops", ie "The Powell Doctrine". TPD relates to battlefield warfare, not fighting an insurgency. It is focused on defeating armies not terrorist cells.
3. McCain was calling for an additional 100,000 troops AFTER the war on the battlefield had been won. In about 100 days and with less than 500 casualties I might add.
4. McCain, prior to the rise of Gen P in late 2005 had never mentioned counter insurgency strategic warfare, he only blathered about the need for another 100K troops (which weren't available because he was opposed to moving troops out of Europe) and took pot shot at Rumsfeld.
5. There's nothing on record that McCain would have - or could have, given his position on European troop deployments - done anything differently than Bush.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
in spirit anyway.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
Seriously, how has this infringed on your constitutional rights? I want some reasonable answers and I don't want to be flamed. Other than listening to the conservative radio folks, how does this impact a citizen's right?
IMWITHMCCAIN
The major POINT of the "freedom of speech" clause had to do with POLITICAL free speech -- not so much whether kiddie porn was a protected form of free speech, but rather the right of the people to have their voice heard during election seasons.
McCain-Feingold -- other than UNIONS (democraps) and the PRESS (democraps) citizen groups are not allowed to run ads in the last 30 or 60 days running up to an election. You know, those crucial last days when a huge chunk of the uninformed electorate finally decide to start paying attention.
And long ago it was decided by the Supreme Court that the freedom to run political ads was a fundamental expression of the "freedom of speech" clause.
That's the short version. If you want the long version, sorry, it's Friday night.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
I still don't agree with the argument and I'll happily wait until Saturday. While not perfect, did it not eliminate soft money flowing to candidates. Without the elimination of this flow the average citizen would have little voice. Now small donors matter, right?
How about eliminating the ability of a corporation to run ads? Doesn't this once again put power back to the individual. If not, large corporations would support whoever they wanted with us much advertising as they wanted at the control of a board or chief X officers.
I'm a not a lawyer and just an average citizen. As evidence on blogs and website how does McCain Feingold eliminate an individual's free speech ability?
Finally your last point might be well the freedom of speech amendment should be absolute and I really don't have an answer because anything resolves itself into well that's why we want conservative judges who don't legislate from the bench. For me, the average citizen has not had their rights compromised at all. Advertising is an expensive venture with long lead times and without a check the only thing that would count is that only the rich can advertise. I don't see why this is a critical issue for voters.
Again thanks for the good answer and no flames.
IMWITHMCCAIN
It's bad enough that Sen. McCain has...
...offered to switch parties in 2001. Gives new life to the rumor of his considering joining Kerry as running mate.
...never missed a chance to shiv his own party (McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, Gang of 14, and so on) and preen for his MSM enablers.
...treated members of his own party with a contempt he's never shown towards more eminently more-deserving Democrats.
...championed the greatest infringement of free speech in my lifetime, as if to atone for his taking Charles Keating's blood money.
...after which I'd still rather pull the lever for him instead of Bonnie-n-Clyde or Yes-We-Can, except that now he's...
...playing Chicken-hawk with his new "Patriotism before Profits" meme. As if it's not those profits that pay for his gold-plated Senate priviliges.
...and I can reasonably expect him as President to...
...sign the first Fairness Doctrine, Alien Amnesty, and Tax Hike bills to cross his desk AND re-submit the Kyoto Protocol to a Democrat-controlled legislature for ratification.
...continue shivving his own party for rejecting him in 2000, rejecting McCain-Kennedy, and for any other real or perceived slights.
Enough. The man OFFENDS me, something Obama has yet to do. And, yes, we all salute his military service, but then Timothy McVeigh, Duke Cunningham, and John Kerry were decorated war vets, too.
I told my wife I'd chew on a toilet brush before I voted for Obama or Billary, but now it looks like I need to go buy a new toilet brush. I can't in good conscience (or even self-interest) vote for McCain if he is our party's nominee.
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
--furious
GOP 2008: The McCain record and the McCain agenda
by Karl
If anyone has lingering doubts that Sen. John McCain's current success rests more on image than issues, one need look no further than his own campaign and supporters.
McCain's own campaign website, in describing McCain's "Experience to Lead," provides a list that focuses on his military service and includes only vague references to his "leadership role in Congress in every major national security issue since the deployment of U.S. Marines to Beirut in 1983." The campaign also notes that he has "served on Senate Armed Services Committee for 20 years, (and is) now senior Republican member of committee," but does not mention any specific accomplishments attributable to that service.
people look for executive experience and leadership and the Senate or House do NOT provide that.
This could be a banner opportunity for the GOP since both Dem candidates are in the Senate -- and have absolutely NO leadership or executive experience.
SO, with a deep bench of candidates with MUCH more executive experience than the Dems, we shoot ourselves in the foot again and select someone from that same do-nothing Senate.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
I have problems with McCain, but would never vote for Hillary.
For the base of the Republician Party today. He knows if he loses the base he has no chance, so he is starting to turn to the base and say "I get the message now". This past summer he told our base to "Take a Hike", for he had a deal with Kennedy and he was standing on his Principal to defend it and anyone who disagreed could go to H*ll. Yet now he is going to be our best friend. HA!
What I am demanding from any Candidate is that they be HONEST with us. Honesty is a word the McCain seems to be having as much trouble defining as Pres. Bill had defining the word "IS"-it depends on what you mean. I do not care a rats tail what a Candidate says if he/she is not 100% honest. That is a major problem for McCain to overcome.
McCain, for the past 6-7 years, tells the Republicans he does not like us and wants nothing to do with, us unless we agree with him. If we disagree with him he says "go to h*ll". I will not support any Candidate with that mind set. His actions are what matter now, not his empty words.
I told his Az office this summer (I'm in Texas); I will write a name in before I will vote for McCain; I still stand by that statement, if McCain is at the top of our ticket. If my Republician Party (with the help of independants voting in Republican Primaries) wants McCain, they can have him.I WILL work to elect TRUE Republicans in the Senate/House and at the State and Local Level but will do zero for McCain.
O.K everyone, I would like some feed back. Nader said today he might run for president if Hillary is the Dems choice. So the question is: HRC-dem, McCain-rep, Nader-green, Romney-3rd party. If this was the ballot in the general election, who would win?
McCain is an embarrassment! Just when did getting captured by the enemy make you a war hero? I thought it made you a POW. The guy turned 6 years in a POW camp into a life long carer in politics. How admirable!
I have never been accused of being in the John McCain fan club, but that last is out of line. Whatever else John McCain has or hasn't done, putting on that uniform and going willingly to Vietnam is enough to qualify him as war hero. Surviving as a POW enhances that. Whatever you may think, do not even pretend to denigrate his service.
this time.
Jim Tomasik
And, as a final parting shot (should the directors be so kind as to rid us of your 5-hour presence), how dare you say that. You have no damn clue about what it's like to wear the uniform of this country-if you did, you wouldn't come in here spouting stupid crap like that.
I'm the last McCain supporter in here, but you have no right and no reason to say that. It's John McCain, and men like John McCain, who sacrificed years of their lives inside that hell-hole in order to make sure you have the freedoms to denigrate them in that manner.
Go somewhere else. You make me sick, and if you were here in person, I'd stomp a mudhole in your a** and walk it dry.
Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!
DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.
As a life-long female staunch conservative, I find it offensive to run a presidential campaign completely on a military background. Please don't get me wrong. Our military is the best in the world and wouldn't have it any other way. It's not him I blame. It's the conservatives that feel he's our best candidate. That's the embarrassing part. Our party encompasses so much more that his candidacy leaves me completely baffled with our party. I was originally for Thompson but now completely back Romney. If McCain gets the nomination, I'll have to re-think......but until then I pray that real conservatives will back Romney.
tomom, you're free to dislike Senator McCain and disagree with him--heaven knows I do--but calling him an embarassment and mocking his war record is not the way to go about engaging in civil debate.
CY's post is a model of reason and restraint. I recommend you imitate it.
I wish more people could see this side of the story.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
...can any McCain supporter here seriously and honestly say that McCain would "reach across the aisle" to help those in his own party seeking re-election the way President Bush did for the good of his own party in helping Arlen Specter or Lincoln Chaffee?
Not on based on available evidence, to wit John Campbell (R-Irvine) and Brian Billbray (R-San Diego).
That's what party leadership demands -- not acting like John McCain. "John McCain" and "swallows his pride" do not belong in the same sentence, the man's thin-skinned vanity and overwhelming sense of Senatorial entitlement won't abide it.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
...wasn't that Toomey and that conservative Crantston mayor that President Bush warded off?
Thanks to our President's near-sightedness, we have two less conservatives in the Senate and still don't have a majority.
...have lost Specter's seat, as well. The White House made the best (in terms of outcome, not principle) choice possible by backing the incumbents. We have to have the seats, period, to have a majority before we can begin counting which are conservatives. That means the party leader has to put up with dilletantes (sp?) like Chaffee or grandstanders like Specter, especially when those majorities are narrow and vulnerable.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
has campaigned for more Republicans around the country than almost any other politicians. I would not be surprised if Bush and perhaps Rudy have done more, but McCain is in the top 5 of current politicians. Part of the reason why is he was a draw in PA for Santorum (who is now stabbing him in the back) and ME for Snowe/Collins. He could anywhere (especially in 2006) while Bush wasn't welcome by Rs in certain states because of the negative publicity.
McCain has been very loyal and has helped elect and fundraise for tons of R candidates.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
...as Campbell and Billbray did in opposing McCain's amnesty proposals.
McCain has been very loyal to himself, which, probably in fairness, applies to most of the Senate.
When McCain treats Dick Durbin (whom he rushed to absolve for Durbin's comparison of American Soldiers to Auschwitz guards) with the same contempt he showed John Cornyn (who opposed McCain's amnesty proposals), I'll reconsider my comments about his party loyalty.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
You tell me who vote for because I'm lost.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrkjCjZbuVg
Before you get to heaven, you must go through hell, which in my case is the People's Republic of Massachusetts.