Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
The McCain Temptation
Kicking The Schisms Down The Road
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | John McCain | Rudy Giuliani — Comments (118) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Well, the caucusers have been counted in Iowa and Wyoming, and the votes are in in New Hampshire, and the candidate I have endorsed - Rudy Giuliani - has yet to get off the mat, while one guy we all buried last summer, John McCain, is suddenly in the thick of the race, and could officially claim frontrunner status if he can win the Michigan primary on Tuesday, January 15.
As a result - and I've been building to this for the past two months, so New Hampshire just brings this to a head - I find myself on the horns of a dilemma regarding the 2008 GOP presidential primaries, and I don't mind sharing it with you, dear readers: I'm debating whether it's time to back another candidate besides Rudy - specifically, McCain. I don't do this lightly; I've debated the merits of others in the field before, but I don't shed commitments easily, and my longstanding view is that, having made my choice, I won't switch to another candidate unless and until I'm decided to walk away from the Rudy camp for good. I'm still not ready to do that - but for now, at least, I'm happy to see Senator McCain's victory in New Hampshire, and I even sent a donation his way to help him take on Romney and Huckabee.
As regular readers will recall, while I supported McCain in 2000, I have been a long time supporter of Rudy, having followed his career since the mid-1980s, lived in New York City through his second term as Mayor and been through September 11. I laid out in the summer of 2005 my roadmap for how I thought he could pursue the GOP presidential nomination in spite of his pro-choice, socially liberal record and I came out publicly for Giuliani for president in February 2007. Today, I'll explain why McCain may end up being my guy after all - and why the collective impulse of a lot of us to settle on McCain is tantamount to taking the known divisions within the party and kicking them down the road for the sake of this election, even if possibly at the cost of aggravating them further in the interim.
Read On...
You Can't Make Me Vote For The Amateurs Or The Sunday Pitcher
While I would vote for any of the Big Five in a general election, I won't repeat here my reasons for considering Mitt Romney an unacceptable choice for the nomination, which I chronicled exhaustively in my "The Trouble With Mitt Romney" series Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. And I will touch only very briefly why I can't support Mike Huckabee. Back when he was a minor candidate I wrote off Huckabee due to the domestic-policy concerns laid out here, including not just his record but his priorities. Just as I was starting to reconcile myself to the idea that we could win a general election with Huck and live with his harebrained economic populism and nanny-statism, however, we got increasing evidence (see, e.g., his Foreign Affairs piece chock full of every discredited Democratic foreign policy cliche in the book) of his unreadiness to be the Commander-in-Chief. On this, I even agree with this guy.
Suffice to say that my presidential choice at this stage - as is true of many conservatives who regard national security as issue #1 during wartime - is thus limited to the three candidates in the GOP field I regard as serious grownups: Rudy, McCain and Fred Thompson. And I explained recently why I'm not backing Fred, much as I like him. Which leaves me two choices: Rudy and McCain.
Schism Today, or Schism Tomorrow?
Let's go back to my test for candidates, as set out in the opener to the Romney series:
1. Can he . . . win the general election?
2. Does he stand for good positions and priorities on the issues?
3. How likely is he to actually turn those positions into effective policy, often in the face of a hostile opposition and media and under various pressures from within and without the Party and the Beltway to back down, flip-flop or compromise?
4. How well do we think he can handle unexpected crises and new issues (especially in foreign affairs) beyond what he's campaigning on?
Regardless of the relative priority you put on the other three, the simple fact is that the best possible potential president in the world is no use if he can't get elected.
On #4, while there are differences between Rudy and McCain, I regard both of them as fundamentally trustworthy on the war, ready to step in as Commander in Chief (as ready as anyone can be coming from Congress or state/local government, at any rate) and head and shoulders above the field in both parties in terms of their credibility on this issue, to the point where McCain even won among anti-Iraq War voters in NH. Because I trust both men to protect the nation when the chips are down, that leaves the first three questions.
1. Chasing The Electability Chimera
Here's the irony: one of the reasons I had initially for supporting Rudy was that he's such a great campaigner and debater, and would be a formidable opponent for Hillary (or, now, possibly Obama) in the general election. But right now, there's growing reason to believe that McCain would be the GOP's strongest general election candidate, which I'll get to in a second. Yet, as discussed below, I still think Rudy would be the better president of the two, and that Rudy would advance more of the conservative agenda, while McCain seems more likely to unify the GOP coalition during the campaign and fracture it in office. The decision between the two, therefore, comes down to how we weigh electability against governability as well as its wages in subsequent elections.
I view electability mainly as a floor; if we have multiple candidates who can win, you pick the one you would most like to win. But electability is itself a moving and elusive target. The problem in this election is that the GOP starts in such a bad place, against such well-known and well-funded Democratic opponents, and the stakes in this race are so high (at least in terms of the war, the courts and taxes; I'm far less optimistic than in 2000 or 2004 that we can move the ball on any other domestic legislative priorities of consequence in the next four years) that electability looms larger than it has in years past.
McCain consistently polls better than any other Republican in projected head-to-head matchups, especially in the key swing state of Ohio, without which no Republican has ever won the White House (Adam C has covered this extensively). I personally don't take polls 10+ months before an election as terribly strong evidence, given the things that can change in the course of a contested campaign, but it is one piece of data to consider.
There are two considerations that carry more weight than polls, at least at this stage, in determining electability. One is gained from watching the candidate and his campaign in action. On that score, neither McCain nor Giuliani has run the best of campaigns (given their strong positions this time a year ago, neither is in the position they should be in), but both remain excellent candidates - eloquent, funny, quick on their feet, thoroughly at home with their reputations as rough-edged tough guys and long experienced in taking shots from both sides of the aisle. Both men should fare well in providing either the charisma and humor that's lacking in Hillary or the spine and gravitas that's lacking in Obama. Neither should be taken lightly in a debate.
Since it takes two to get votes (the candidate and the voter), however, the other part of the electability equation is what voters they will appeal to. And here is where Rudy's flaws as a candidate require serious thought. Two stand out. I've spent a lot of time arguing with people about these issues, but I hope nobody came away with the impression that I don't take them seriously. They are, in fact, the main reasons to worry about Rudy in November.
The first is his liberal record and positions on social issues, mainly abortion. There are some conservative voters who simply will refuse to pull the lever for Rudy, even knowing that the result could be handing the control of the courts and the rest of the social-issue agenda to Hillary Clinton. I've argued repeatedly that this is daft, but that's beside the point; the point is that it's a feature of the map as real as any other. Nobody really knows how many such voters there are, and certainly a lot of them are likely to reside in solid-red states in the Deep South. But at least some will likely be in states we need to win. There are also the "What's The Matter With Kansas" voters, for whom the pro-life/social conservative banner is the main or only reason they vote GOP. Again, it can be hard to put a number on these voters but in past years they have been crucial to GOP candidates winning LA, AR, KY, WV, in some cases OH and IA, and staying competitive in PA & MI (although PA also has a lot of socially liberal Rs, so the tradeoffs there are debatable).
If you go back to my 2005 roadmap, Rudy has actually done most of the things I suggested to try to build bridges to these voters. He's appeared at the right events, he's met with the right leaders and even won a few endorsements, he's treated SoCons with respectful and solicitous language, he's made the necessary "do no harm" promises on a host of issues and changed his positions around the margins (e.g., partial-birth abortion), he's surrounded himself with a great group of advisers on judicial conservatism, and he's beaten the drum for judges, judges, judges.
I never thought Rudy could credibly come out to call for banning abortion; but he could have run as a clearer pro-choice/anti-Roe candidate, and laid out a fuller, more compelling story of why social-issue federalism should appeal to culture warriors on both the Right and the Left. He hasn't. He blew an early debate answer by waffling on whether a 'strict constructionist' judge would need to vote to overturn Roe; a guy with a pro-life record could afford ambiguity on that question, but Rudy couldn't. I may post at some point the precise framing of the issue that I think he needed to pursue, but I no longer expect anything new on this front from him; he's stuck with the residual mistrust that his abortion position created, and we go to war with that in our nominee or we don't.
Social conservatives are the only faction of the party Rudy has a real problem with; he's run as far or further to the right of everyone in the field on national security and economic issues, he's fairly successfully used his law enforcement creds to wend his way to the middle of the field on immigration, and he's benefitted from the complete demise of any national impetus for gun control (the silence that followed the Virgina Tech shootings was tellingly deafening). Ironically, given the importance of Supreme Court nominations, Rudy could actually end up mending fences in office with good judicial nominations and fidelity to the "do no harm" agenda. But he has to get there first - so the schism comes to the fore now, during the election season.
The second electability issue Rudy brings is his personal life - and it becomes a more significant issue if running against Obama than if the opponent is the Clinton Traveling Soap Opera. I will admit that I probably underestimated quite how badly this could hurt Rudy, since it was already a very well-known aspect of his life, and one that most people could balance against his extensive public record. But what happened to Rudy is very easy to explain: a spate of stories in early December 2007 about police details for Judith Nathan during the secret portion of their affair and the collapse of Rudy's second marriage did what no story had done before, and tied the issue to Rudy's capacity as Mayor. And the result, more than anything else, was devastating to Rudy's standing in the polls:
The state-by-state results were worse, essentially driving Rudy out of races that had once looked competitive for him in New Hampshire and Michigan. It hardly mattered that most of the stories had little substance to them and fell apart on closer examination. What mattered was that it moved a lot of voters from thinking of this as old news to worrying that there were other shoes to drop. Combined with the ugly overhang from the decline and fall of Bernard Kerik, that issue as well is likely to dog Rudy going forward.
Now, there remains a good possibility that once we get down to a two-person general election race, Rudy can offset a lot of these problems by reaching into areas where the GOP has done poorly in recent years. He'll undoubtedly be competitive in states like PA & NJ that the Democrats absolutely must win. But "competitive" doesn't win elections, and so the Rudy strategy of widening the number of states in play could still turn out to be a case of just stretching resources too thin, especially in Northeastern states where urban Democratic machines have ground games that always win the close ones.
Rudy thus faces a two-pronged electability problem; McCain doesn't. The only GOP faction that really regards McCain as anathema is the immigration hawks, but I continue to doubt how large that group really is (especially the segment that voted for Bush). McCain may thus be able to cobble together a lot of different factions of the party that consider him better than the worst option in the field. His wry personality, long tenure in office, national visibility, war hero status and genuine credibility on national security all add up to the makings of a consensus candidate that may be nobody's first choice, but could keep the party from fracturing along its various fault lines long enough to hold the White House.
2. So We Won. What Do We Do Now?
So yes, I think McCain is electable, at least as electable as anybody in the GOP field. And I'm no longer sure whether or not Rudy is. And I can live with McCain as the nominee. But that doesn't mean I'm leaping to his banner, either.
First, I think Rudy would be a better and in practice more functionally conservative president. I explained this in my original Rudy endorsement: McCain has no executive experience; Rudy is the most gifted and accomplished public executive of the past two decades. Rudy is a prioritizer who wants to cut taxes and spending across the board and has a record of doing so; McCain has tended to pick even his spending battles on small-dollar pork projects (although he did oppose Bush's prescription drug boondoggle) and stood vocally against Bush's tax cuts. While I think all five major GOP candidates would be good on judges but I trust none of them except Fred 100% on the issue, I think it more likely that Rudy will listen to his advisers on this issue and try to establish a good process, whereas I still worry that McCain might prioritize his campaign finance crusade, which will never be blessed by judges who take the Constitution seriously. McCain is more likely to pursue death to conservative priorities by a thousand cuts in the regulatory agencies, environmental policy, etc.
More to the point, not only is Rudy more conservative on the issues that are the bread and butter of the President's daily business and traditional Article II powers, but it's McCain's style that worries me. We all know too well (see here and here for good analyses) how McCain has over and over and over sought to triangulate, putting himself in the middle to media plaudits, with GOP conservatives left out in the cold. Rudy, while he's mistrusted by the Right on some discrete issues, isn't like that; he's more naturally a polarizing figure who is likely to pick a lot of fights with the Democrats just because that's who he is. But a McCain presidency would likely wear down frustrated conservatives over time. The fact that he aggravates nearly everyone in the party a little can be papered over for an election season, but it will wear as time goes on, and wear badly.
McCain will turn 72 in August; he's just a year younger than Reagan when he pursued his second term. It's highly likely that after four years of him, either he will wear out and not run for a second term, or conservative patience with him will exhaust and lead to a nasty primary battle against an incumbent. If we line up now behind him, we can perhaps avoid splitting the party in this election, and the rewards, particularly due to McCain's leadership in wartime, may well be worth the cost.
But we can't fool ourselves that a McCain nomination wouldn't prevent a schism in the party, it would only delay one and perhaps redraw the lines into a more traditional moderates vs. conservatives battle. Which is one reason why, even though I've been happy for McCain's recent rise, even though I may well end up in his camp, even though I've even recently given him money, I'm not yet ready to throw my support behind the senior Senator from Arizona. The McCain temptation puts us to a choice: if we follow him into battle today and win, we will probably end up fighting him tomorrow. That may be a deal worth making, but it's still a compromise, and one on which the bill will eventually come due.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | A President Needs Foreign Policy Experience — Comments (127) »
The McCain Temptation 118 Comments (0 topical, 118 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
All of McCain's flaws
by Hooah Mac
All of his flaws and backstabs and going off the reservation could be forgiven by me but one: While I was getting shot at in a desert on the opposite side of the world, he was whining to the microphones about what a bad job the CinC and SecDef were doing. His claim now that he is responsible for the good news out of Iraq is rubbing salts in the wound.
There were many avenues he had for getting a change in strategy, not that he even suggested one (except MORE troops, essentially the same as many democrats were critizing the administration for). There was a shift in strategy, and it involved adding additional troops, but it was not McCain's doing, it was the doing of President Bush and GEN Petraeus, and their current success is not a repudiation but rather an extension of the hard work of Rumsfeld, Casey, and the Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and others who went before.
Of all of John McCain's betrayals, this is the one I cannot forgive.
5^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ nt
by mbecker908
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
5. Well said, Hooah Mac. (nt)
by docj
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
5 (n/t)
by Finrod
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
McCain Surge Support
by klaisaok
Hooah Mac is right that it wasn't just McCain, but obviously McCain isn't trying to claim exclusive responsibility for the surge. But McCain did provide essential support.
Don't forget how close the Dems got to pulling the plug on funding for Iraq. Without the remarkably stalwart support McCain, Lieberman and Graham showed, there is a good chance the Dems might have won.
the war effort for years.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Former Senator Santorum is not credable...
by Samsara
He had Rudy come to PA. to campaign for him, then he attacks McCain for not being a grandstanding uber-social-conservative. Hypocrisy.
Phenomenal stuff, Dan
by hoyasaxa
I've been having a similar McCain/Giuliani tussle in my own mind. I've resolved that I'm going to vote for whichever is in better shape after Feb. 5 (as my primary is on Feb. 12).
Really just a great look into the same thoughts I've been having, with very little disagreements.
"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly
Well then, we are doomed to be political opponents then
by E Pluribus Unum
No point in hashing it all out here.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
As a pro-life conservative, who emphasizes social-conservative issue, I have for a long time placed Giuliani in the bottom of my list.
But this line of yours sums out the argument for Giuliani:
"The decision between the two, therefore, comes down to how we weigh electability against governability as well as its wages in subsequent elections."
Giuliani has a record of criticizing social conservatives and rejecting our beliefs. But at worst, he was doing so merely for political advantage in NYC. But McCain has a long habit of sticking his finger in the eye of conservatives, and his motives, at worst, were not because it was necessary to his remaining a senator from AZ, but just gratuitously, or merely to be the media favorite.
Therefore, a reasonably uncharitable interpretation of Giuliani is that he's a political opportunist, but he'll more or less play ball with social conservatives while in office. But McCain would put a Souter on the courts, just to win the praise of the media and liberals for his "bipartisanship" and perhaps just for the gratiutous pleasure of offending the "agents of intolerance."
If so, Giuliani would keep the coalition more or less together, but McCain would fracture it badly while President.
So now Pat Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani but whole-hearted rejection of McCain is making a bit more sense to me.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
This is good stuff
by Cowboy
Dan, who did five big pieces on what a terrible flip flopper Mitt Romney is now is one himself.
Rudy and SoCons
by LagunaDave
Giuliani has a record of criticizing social conservatives and rejecting our beliefs.
Even this seems like a bit of an overstatement.
He may disagree with social conservatives on certain issues, but he does not demonize them or dismiss them as somehow illegitimate, does he?
Likewise, I think not sharing (all) the beliefs of social conservatives is rather different from "rejecting" them.
Giuliani is a law-and-order guy. He believes in personal responsibility. He believes that abortion is wrong, but that ultimately the decision must be a matter of individual conscience. He does not believe the Supreme Court should decide the question for us.
There is a tendency, during primary season, to exaggerate differences when they are really not so big, is all I'm saying.
Well, he did accept an award from NARAL
by Dan McLaughlin
I mean, let's not beat around the bush about how bad his record has been on this issue. Either you believe that Rudy is with us on judges, or you don't. But I've never tried to convince anyone that he isn't or hasn't been actively in favor of legal abortion. The argument for Rudy is that his support for conservative judges makes him functionally pro-life in the sense that judges who overturn Roe would send the issue back to the states. It's not about whitewashing his actual record.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I just don't understand how
by kowalski
I just don't understand how you could have ever supported him in the first place. Rudy has a lot of pluses but even against Romney as a Conservative the clear choice was Romney. Now you're on the horns of a dilemma with McCain, but where else do you have to go now that you've made Romney out to be the Devil's Tenderoni?
If he is a personal responsibility guy (and I agree that to a good extent, he is), then why did he do his best to make sure that getting a firearm in NYC - and the rest of the US for that matter - was as difficult as possible? Isn't it my responsibility to protect myself?
I must admit that, as much as I completely disagree with Giuliani on most social issues, this primary season is making him look better. While I have no intention of voting for him, my dislike definitely has diminished.
Very good point, Dan, about Giuliani acting as a functionally more conservative president than McCain. That is the catalyst behind the improval of Giuliani to me.
He also stated that what works in New York won't work in Mississippi.
By New York City standards Rudy is probably conservative on RKBA - not that that's saying much. So to the extent he was anti-gun as mayor that would reflect the New York environment; also as mayor he didn't have any control over New York State gun laws.
My take on Rudy and guns is that he won't try to impose tougher federal restrictions and he won't try to fight them either. I don't see a push for new federal gun restrictions now, so Rudy is ok on this issue [new gun control could always be filibustered in the Senate]. He'd certainly be better than Clinton or Obama.
McCain pandering to media?
by klaisaok
Absolutely not. If McCain cared what the media thought of him he wouldn't have stuck so doggedly to the Iraq Surge. The media was licking its chops, fantasizing about ending the Iraq war the same way their predecessors ended Vietnam (of course the quickest way to end a war--to lose it).
I have a much simpler explanation for the media's love for McCain. He is the only candidate from either party that is a real person when talking to the media. He actually drinks alcohol when he talks to them instead of trying to stay on message. Every other candidate minimizes their contact with the media, McCain relishes in it. The media love McCain because he is terribly, unshakably honest with them.
And he's funny as hell.
Well said Dan
by Adam C
It was very similar arguments that pushed me toward Rudy this summer.
The only element that you never touch on (and maybe you find it unimportant) is partisanship. Rudy is much more partisan than McCain. I think this is why he is more likely to make policy through a political lens (i.e. pick judges to make his base happy). But it is also a major reason why he went from leading Clinton/Obama in head-to-head polls to trailing them.
I think we may all be missing a significant part of the Independent frustration with current politics, both with Congress and the President. They are fed up with the political lens. They don't like seeing a party or politician choose to do something because it makes his base happy.
I think there is a lot of desire for someone who does what he thinks is best for the country. I think that's why the pork barrel corruption has been such a big deal among voters. I think that is why Obama has a chance against the Clinton machine. And I think it partially explains McCain's appeal even to people who disagree with him (NH anti-war Rs and conservatives in general).
But you covered everything else in a fair and respectful way. I wish more of our posters did the same.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I disagree on one point, Adam
by Dan McLaughlin
Rudy slid in the head to head polls in tandem with his slide with GOP voters. Independents didn't suddenly wake up and notice that he'd spent the past six years stumping for Republicans and supporting the President.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I'd say it doesn't matter
by skey
Neither one is a conservative, so you might as well flip a coin.
Rudi
by dmort
I think Rudi will do well once we roll into the meat of the primaries.Rudi is doing well in the big states like NY,FL and California. In the race to collect delegates Iowa and NH really are a side show.I think Rudi is more appealing than McCain. Immigration is a big issue and I dont see McCain reversing course by cracking down on illegal immigration.Huckabee certainly wont be shutting down the border either.We just cannot continue to allow very low skill people into this country its a drain on the entire economy.
Very well said Dan...
by matpruitt
I have not officially said it, mostly because I still like my guy Mike Huckabee and I don't want to hear comments about another Huck supporter biting the dust, but I know deep down in my heart that I am voting for John McCain.
Right man. Right time. Right election.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
Conservatives
by Pirate Hunter for Hire
True conservatives ought to do everything they can to help Fred win in SC. After that, if it's another no-show for him, we ought to support Mitt as the anti-Huck/McCain candidate (as someone above put it). I don't think I could stomach either one of the latter in the general election. McCain is no conservative. Listen good to what Rick Santorum's been saying today: I used to work on the Hill, and I'm telling you, that's the sort of thing I heard about McCain ALL THE TIME. Other Republican senators wouldn't say it in public, but it's true. Even his "friends" up there know what he really is. He's a back-stabbing, media-grabbing, say-and-do-anything-to-get-attention, massage-Republicans-when-necessary-but-work-against-them-when-in-the-private-meeting-rooms-of-the-Senate kind of politician. Santorum nailed it. And Giuliani? Nice guy. Great leader ... just not an all-around conservative.
Agreed 100%
by Cowboy
All McCain backers need to stand up loud and proud because if he somehow manages to get elected get ready for the ridicule coming your way for the things this man will do to conservatives and the movement.
5 - I agree
by kowalski
When this election cycle began I knew that McCain was one of the "virtual shoo-ins" and I had no interest in supporting him. To a lesser extent the same thing is true of Giuliani, because he's just *patently not* a Conservative on *any* issue. He's a Liberal Republican.
For Pete's sake at least Romney has stated his positions clearly and I think we can expect him to act that way.
*any* issue?
by Dan McLaughlin
C'mon. Explain to me what the conservative position is on the following issues, and how it differs from Rudy's:
*National defense/security/the war
*Taxes
*Spending
*Law enforcement
*Welfare
*Education
*Racial preferences
I never claimed that Rudy was, in Sam Brownback's phrase, a full-scale Reaganite. He's a moderate on some issues and a liberal on others. But to deny that Rudy is a real conservative on any issue requires ignoring his record.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
The horns of your dilemma
by kowalski
Will lead you directly to John McCain. Since you can't back Romney, you're going to wind up supporting him. It's not necessarily a shame, Dan, it's almost...
...
by design...
McCain could be a great
by kirk78
McCain could be a great president when it comes to national security and spending, however he is still the candidate that conservatives should fear the most.
Of the five candidates for the nomination, McCain is the only one who could NOT be forced to tow the line by the base. For an example of how bad that could be, think about Bush and Miers and how that could have gone! And given his desire to please the MSM, there could be a lot of infuriating days for Republics in a McCain White House.
And if all of this isn't bad enough, think of how much more of a "Maverick" he will be, considering he likely won't seek reelection.
If you are a Rudy backer,
by moderich
If you are a Rudy backer, like myself, then I think you ought to stick with him until Super Tuesday - only weeks away. After all, that's when his campaign strategy will actually be tested.
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
That is correct nt
by Dan McLaughlin
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Tough spot
by moderich
Well, that does put him in a tough spot. But then I would ask to wait until the Florida primary on January 29 before deciding to pull out.
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
Agreed
by Finrod
I haven't checked the math but I think if Giuliani wins Florida, he'll have the delegate lead going into Super Fat Tuesday, Feb. 5; I'm voting that day and I'll be punching the ballot for Rudy.
Given how much heartburn McCain has given conservatives merely by being 1 of 100 members of half of the legislative branch of gov't, I'd buy stock in antacid companies if he managed to become the whole executive branch.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Dan - great thinking to a point
by strange__guy
I suspect that for each single issue voter turned off by Rudy there are three or four multi-issued voters who won't vote McCain.
It's better that we lose and still be a party.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
McCain has irked me on many issues, but at the end of the day, our troops deserve the most positively experienced commander-in-chief that we can give them.
McCAin is hands down the most experienced in dealing with the dept of def, the congress. He knows our military leaders the best. He has two of his own kids in the conflict. And he has the most visits to and with the leaders in the area.
His ability to call for, support, and shuttle through congress support for the surge is proven success.
Last, he has some credibility with us (on this issue at least), indies and conservative democrats.
Hands down he is the best leader we can send our troops and put up against "youth and inexperience" and "the queen who cut and ran".
Last, I would love to watch McCAin take Hillary on fiscal discipline. His stellar earmark record and comments like Republicans were trying to find funding to rebuild New Orleans while Hillary was siphoning millions for her rich friends in Woodstock would be brilliant theater and great for re-branding the Republican name.
No other candidate can bring that gravitas.
C'mon guys, McCain has to be the man.
"Most experienced" does not equal "only experienced"
by Dan McLaughlin
That McCain has the most experience does not mean that Rudy or Fred would not be a perfectly good Commander in Chief.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I'd like to believe that Rudy, Fred or Mitt would be perfectly good commanders in chief, but why take a chance?
McCain knows intimately what is going on and what has gone on in Afghan and Iraq. He has made us all look good again with the surge.
with 150,000 of our best on the front line, replacing McCain with Rudi is like replacing a successful CEO in the middle of a reorganization. it makes no sense and is an unecessary risk.
I like McCain
by moqui
He is my 2nd choice, too, behind Rudy, again primarily on the basis of of foreign affairs.
BUT . . . he is not as electable as you think. In the general, his involvement in the Keating 5 will be a much bigger deal. Also, his wife Cindy has a very dicey drug scandal in her background that will also get a lot of play. The combination of the two will be problem, because they have the nexus of McCain using his status as a senator to do favors for those close to him - favors that many will see as unethical.
This is a tough year for us, and none of our candidates offers a silver bullet. We have a great VP candidate - Tim Pawlenty - but I'm afraid we aren't going to find the right head-of-ticket match for him.
When you write, Crank, that
by spainishirish
(b)oth men should fare well in providing either the charisma and humor that's lacking in Hillary or the spine and gravitas that's lacking in Obama,
you glossed over McCain's greatest fault, and that is his temperament. Someone once said of the senator he's great six out of every seven days. There will be plenty of seven-day weeks between nomination and the general election, and of all the candidates (to my knowledge) McCain is the most prone to fly into a rage, belittle a voter, or snarl at just the wrong moment.
Rudy has the same problem, but it is to a much lesser degree.
Like many, I'm much closer to McCain on most issues than I am to Rudy on quite a few. But when I weigh the temperament issue I am not and never will be comfortable with McCain.
Polls support that in head-to-head match-ups McCain currently is the most likely winner. But your Step Two will never materialize if McCain has a major meltdown televised from coast to coast, and this is a very likely possibility.
Even when you write
but it's McCain's style that worries me. We all know too well (see here and here for good analyses) how McCain has over and over and over sought to triangulate, putting himself in the middle to media plaudits, with GOP conservatives left out in the cold,
which makes what I believe is a false assumption that McCain would be viable by November and win, you get to the nub of why Rudy is preferable to McCain. A president must go over the head of the media to the people to govern, and a presidential candidate, particularly a Republican, must do the same to win.
McCain will not do either.
I respect your decision, your argument is fairly persuasive, but you make enough false assumptions for me to disregard your conclusion. I haven't decided yet who will get my vote, but I know three who won't.
Temper
by Dan McLaughlin
McCain, Rudy and Hillary all have that issue; Huck is reputed to have quite a temper as well, though we have not seen it on the trail.
What mitigates this for the three Republicans is their sense of humor, which can defuse some of the downsides of that. Dean didn't have a sense of humor, and neither does Hillary.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
No doubt true about Rudy and from what I understand
by spainishirish
Huckabee, but the mayor apparently has a better ability to keep it under control. I've read and have been told Huckabee is just this side of McCain on that score, but haven't seen it myself. If anyone can recall McCain's snarling dismissal of Maria Shriver before he conceded in 2000, they should just imagine such an outburst if he were the nominee. It would sink us.
Congratulations, Crank.
by docj
I don't think I had ever before scratched my head so hard trying to answer the age old question - WTF? - that it resulted in actually yanking hair out of my head, by the roots.
Until reading this post, that is.
Well, that's one more thing to cross of the "To-Do-Before-I-Croak" List.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
McCain is Shameful
by Marcus Traianus
How this early in the race any conservative could consider voting for him is absolutely puzzling. What are McCain's accomplishments over his entire career for the values we hold dear? Anybody?
Does anyone remember how he let the speculation run rampant after losing to GWB that he would change parties? He has spent the intervening time on the wrong side of GITMO, judges, campaign "finance", tax cuts (which he said were giveaways for the rich, check the record), spending and immigration. He was also leading the despicable charge against Mr Rumsfeld, who probably did more as SECDEF than McCain did in his entire tenure.
Think about how many issues we lost by a few votes with McCain on the wrong side (ANWAR comes to mind). He could have been the hero for this party, yet he chose to stick a thumb on our eye and shred the Constitution.
In the face of McCain's actions, how any conservative could consider voting for him is beyond my capabilties to reason.
Honestly. He wins NH and you guys get all watery-eyed. We know how well that's worked out for him in the past. What happened to the steely eyed bunch I used to know?
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
Spending? McCain's better
by RandomGuy
Spending? McCain's better on spending then any other candidate on the R side.
And I am sick and tired of people attacking McCain's record on Judges. His record is perfect. The ONLY gripe you people have is the Gang of 14, and you still can't prove that A. We had the votes to pass the nuclear option, B. That we'd be better off if we did. We got what we wanted. Stop whining.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
McCain does have an excellent voting record on judges
by Dan McLaughlin
He voted for Bork, he voted for Clarence Thomas, and he voted for Alito, when none of those votes was a shoo-in. He also voted to remove Bill Clinton from office. McCain's apostasies can't be glossed over but they should not be read as proof that he's the kind of Jeffords/Linc Chaffee type RINO who heads for the door in every tough fight.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
A better metaphor, Dan
by Marcus Traianus
Your right Dan he's not heading for the door. McCain's the guy stealing the door handle behind our backs so no one else can get out. A perfect metaphor for his effect on our rights and Constitution.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
BS
by Cowboy
McCain has permanently hurt us by not helping get the Bush judges through. As with the tax cuts he did it to get some payback.
We should have used the nuclear option. When has a Republican Senate came close to using the fillibuster? If we don't use it on Ginsberg we will never use it.
He hurt us by not getting
by RandomGuy
He hurt us by not getting judges through when he voted for EVERY SINGLE JUDGE Bush nominated and helped author an agreement that got almost every blocked judge (the only one it didn't get through, Sadd, almost certainly did not have a majority) through?
You have an awfully illogical definition of "not helping."
BTW, I'm sure you are too uninformed and dedicated to your own, false, narrative to believe this, but it's an open secret that Lindsay Graham was sent by Bush himself to make sure that the Gang of 14 deal went through, because Bush didn't want the nuclear option used, fearing it wouldn't work and would be harmful even if it did.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Personally I think reasonable minds can differ on the Gang of 14
by Dan McLaughlin
it's not an open/shut issue. Roberts and Alito got through, and a few star appellate judges did too.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I agree reasonable minds can
by RandomGuy
I agree reasonable minds can differ on if it was right to vote for the G-14. What I have trouble believing is that reasonable minds can come to any conclusion other then it was a difficult call, and that reasonable minds can differ on that question. I'm stick and tired of McCain getting so much crap for a deal that quite obviously got us, at least, 90% of what we wanted.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Pure syllogization
by Marcus Traianus
We got 90% because McCain and his Gang of Fools decided to engaged in an extra Constitutional process with Chuck Schumer.
Constitutionally, our President has the right to make ALL his appointements with "advise and consent". If this unprecedented fillibuster process was eliminated, which would have occurred without McCain's "Gang", the extra constitutionality would have ceased. Where does that lead logically? To all of those fine people being appointed.
It seems that when McCain has the chance to shred our Constitution or lead, he picks the former. Whether it's McCain-Feingold, conferring Constitutional rights on the enemy, approving judges or voting against meaningful decreases in taxation, McCain has done more to attenuate or basic Constitutional foundation. That is not only shameful, but should never be rewarded with a role that chiefly protects the very rights for which he has very little respect.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
555 McCain is repeatedly on the
by Cowboy
wrong side of constituional issues. And normally clear thinkers still support him for POTUS. I don't get it.
victory? shallow
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Garbage
by Marcus Traianus
McCain has done more indirectly to impact government spending though ridiculous nonsense like the Patients Bill of Rights and various health care mandates. Upholding the basic Republican value of fiscal conservatism is a given; not something he should be lauded for. Plus his record on taxes is one of the worst. If you don't think that impacts spending, you need to look much closer. Ask good people like Pat Toomey and The Club for Growth.
On judges, McCain has permanently prevented fixing a process that is both unconstitutional and could have been stopped by Republicans. This could have been a major win for the rule of law and originalist interpretation he now feigns to support as part of a great charade. But thanks to "Mr Straight Talk" that opportunity is lost. Do you remember names of the decent, honest, originalist judges McCain help Chuck Schumer stop with his tom foolery? No of course you don't.
I can not think of anyone that has done more to abrogate large sections of our Constitutional Rights than John McCain.
"Protect and defend the Constitution"? He can't even perfrom that duty as a Senator, much less as POTUS.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
pork and entitlements in negative impact on the economy.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Again, this is one of those,
by RandomGuy
Again, this is one of those, "If the facts don't fit, make them up," posts.
To call McCain's record on taxes one of the worst is retarded. Yes, he favored smaller tax cuts then Bush, and wanted them tied to spending. Yes, he was wrong.
But to say someone who's never voted for a tax increase in his 25 years in Congress has "one of the worst" records on taxes is pure stupidity.
And I'd like to see your proof that the filibuster was unconstitutional. Let's face it: If the D's had come up with the same argument, a lot of people here would be screaming bloody murder, saying they were just using their "living Constitution," BS again. I'm not saying I wouldn't have been a yes vote, I would have voted yes on the nuclear option, but I also would have voted with the Gang to avoid it if possible, but saying that this tactical disagreement is some major deal is just proof of irrational McCain hatred.
What McCain did is preserve the ability of the Senate to continue funding the war and to consider other things, which would have been crippled by the nuclear deal. Bush knew this. It's an open secret, although I'm sure you're too uninformed to know this, that Lindsay Graham was sent by Bush himself to make sure the G14 deal went through, because he was afraid the nuclear option wouldn't work, and wouldn't be good if it did.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Marcus - you da man!
by strange__guy
Don't hold back I KNOW you've got more to unload!!
McCain - not now - not ever!
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Not
by Tom_Holsinger
McCain has major, major money problems. This is crippling. He has to swamp everyone else early before the money problems finish him off. This is not likely. Giuliani and Romney have too much money already to go down early. So if McCain can't win it all before Super Tuesday, what happens?
First, McCain is doing well with Democrats, but not Republicans. Note Giuliani's absence from GOP primaries where Democrats can vote, and look at who cross-over Democrats and independents voted for in the GOP primary in New Hampshire (another reason why Hillary won there - many Obama Democrats voted for McCain thinking Obama had the Democrat race locked up). Giuliani is careful not to let the Democrats vote against him in GOP primaries. Romney wasn't, and this is hurting him big-time.
The sophistication of primary voters in this election is amazing and will get great attention from the pros after November.
IMO McCain will win in Michigan, and quite possibly by a significant margin over Romney, because lets Democrats vote in the GOP primary while Hillary is the only major candidate on the Democratic side. I suspect Romney would win if the Michigan GOP primary was limited to registered Republicans.
But there are simply too many states, particularly on Super Tuesday, where only registered Republicans can vote in GOP presidential primaries, and where both Obama and Hillary are on the Democratic ballots. McCain will do much less well then because Democrats can't, and won't, cross over to vote for him.
Second, Super Tuesday is where McCain will out of money. Unless George Soros sets up a zillion more 527's and what not, and gives those a hundred million dollars to use for McCain. McCain will simply be at a disastrous disadvantage on Super Tuesday due to lack of money. And he has to start buying air-time options now for those - there is a lead time.
And McCain has major general election problems. First, his Democratic support will leave him in favor of the Democratic nominee.
Additionally McCain's television presence is far, far inferior to Obama's. IMO Obama could beat him in November. Hillary I don't know about. Her negatives are very high.
I am confident that Giuliani could beat both Hillary and Obama, with Romney doing almost as well. Fred Thompson has no chance.
Right now Giuliani's strategy looks a lot better than it did a week ago.
So does Huck.
by Dan McLaughlin
If Rudy can start drawing some serious votes, that analysis will look better. But there's a lot of free media out there, and if voters think it's McCain vs Huck, it won't matter as much that both are broke.
That's one reason I donated to McCain; I'd at least like to have him as an option and not drop out for lack of funds.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
This is a great point:
by spainishirish
The sophistication of primary voters in this election is amazing and will get great attention from the pros after November.
It explains why the "rules" and cliches have been so useless this time out.
Giuliani Has Money Problems Too?
by Tom_Holsinger
This story indicates that Giuliani's campaign may have major, major money problems:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_SVjKSmN7LAHssYmQeRzogjggvwD8U3QU8G0
"About a dozen senior campaign staffers for Rudy Giuliani are forgoing their January paychecks, a sign of possible money trouble for the Republican presidential candidate and last year's national front-runner.
"We have enough money, but we could always use more money," said Mike DuHaime, Giuliani's campaign manager and one of those who now is working for free. "We want to make sure we have enough to win."
At the end of December, the campaign had $12.7 million cash on hand, $7 million of which could be used for the primary, DuHaime said Friday. He disputed the notion of a cash-strapped operation and said Giuliani continues to bring in money; several fundraisers are scheduled this week in Florida."
It looks more and more like all the major candidates are hitting walls. The next two weeks will be very interesting.
If anything, it's probably a
by RandomGuy
If anything, it's probably a cash-flow problem. Rudy isn't nearly as wealthy as Romney, but he could still cut himself a $5million dollar check if he really needed to.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Giulaini's "money problem"
by Neil Stevens
Giuliani's money problem is that he already spent all his money buying his television ad time in all the important Super Tuesday states.
He's in no danger of going silent.
I've got the same problem.
by RandomGuy
I've got the same problem. I'm sticking with Rudy unless he's clearly out of the game, however, because he'd be better at kicking a$$ against Dems in Congress.
That said, I'd be fine with McCain.
My current list would look like this:
1. Giuliani
2. McCain
.
3. Thompson
.
.
4. Romney.
5. Duncan Hunter
.
.
.
.
.
6. Mike Huckabee
I'd vote D before I'd vote for Ron Paul.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Fight the temptation to vote for McCain
by john_stewart_is_a_tool
Just ask yourself why the media loves him. Ask yourself why he's so eager to appear on the most liberal cable news network. And ask yourself how someone who's spent his life making compromises with the other side of the isle can possibly be the man to take *ownership* of the conservative party.
Just keep asking yourself these questions, and things will fall into focus for you.
Good luck on your choice.
Ask yourself why Coombs just called him a maverick NT
by SG Lominac
What the hell is going on out here? - Vince Lombardi
Doesn't matter anymore
by pscblazer20
It is an absolute shame to see so many compromise their beliefs, some of them deeply held, in order to secure another 4 years. I believe their is still hope in some of us to select a Real conservative ticket, one that unites all 3 sides of conservative beliefs.
Those who are compromising I have to ask, what else will you compromise? Didn't we once label the Democrats as sellouts? If we select McCain and he wins we have absolutely no one but ourselves to blame for it.
I would much rather we run a conservative ticket, not a RINO ticket, and if we lose, at least, we go out with the dignity of knowing we held firm our beliefs and didn't sell out just to win.
We're at war. And SCOTUS is forever.
by Dan McLaughlin
We live with the price of defeats for decades.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Maybe we just want to compromise your beliefs..
by Chi_Town_Jerry
I'm getting a little sick and tired of people defining what a conservative should and should not believe. I'm not sure what your beliefs are, but a lot of the people in this thread have tried to define what a conservative is..
Well, I'm a conservative. But I firmly believe the internment camps on Gitmo are wrong wrong wrong. And I agree with McCain that we should have standards that have firm lines drawn in the sand against torture.
I'm a conservative. But I will not pretend that this whole Iraq war was not screwed up from the get go, whether it was justified or not. Bush and most especially Rumsfeld had no idea what they were getting into and went in with far too few troops. It was a screw up from the beginning and I will not blindly pretend that Bush is my hero.
I'm a conservative. And I used to think the Republican party cared about fiscal responsibility. Nope.. GWB threw that one out the window as well. The Repubs have spent like drunken Democrats.
I'm a conservative. But I believe existing embryos could be used for stem cell research. Please stop equating fundamental Christianity values with Conservative values. And please stop equating Conservatives with neanderthal Creationists that believe the universe is 6000 yrs old and that evolution is a fairy tale.
So, by backing McCain I'm not compromising one thing. And, I AM a conservative. And, I will vote Republican as long as it's not Huckabee.
I was going to write a post defending the decision to invade Iraq, as well as pointing out the total success we had in the initial invasion. But then I got to your rant about Creationists. If potshots at fundamentalist Christians are your way of proving you can have an intelligent conversation with others, I'd suggest you rethink your strategy.
-
NARF
Ok.. That was uncalled for..
by Chi_Town_Jerry
It just bothers me a lot that fundamental Christians think they own the Republican party.
As far as the Iraq war goes, I wasn't arguing against the decision to invade. I said it was conducted poorly. Of course the initial invasion was a success.. it was against a rag tag force that deserted their units or surrendered quickly.
The shock and awe campaign nearly totally destroyed the infrastructure. So what was the plan? The administration felt they could start with a clean slate and rebuild Iraq quickly by throwing money at it. How stupid.
Then they failed to secure the borders. Chaos.
The Iraq war has been an utter debacle politically. And let me make this clear, that statement should take nothing away from the courageous men and women who fought, died and/or were injured there. They have done an amazing job given that the idiots in Washington had no workable plan.
Jerry
Us.Nea-Cons.Not.All.Mono.Lithic
by CincoSolas del Bronx
Big surprise it will be to ones who say we all walk in same direction to look for new chief.
Also very funny joke when you say you tired of hearing peoples say what they thinks so now it your turn to say what you thinks. Ha. Ha. Rolling in my cave. Ouch. Obsidian flakes sharp.
Now must return to gnawing bones before Big Leon get angry at paleo-grammar.
soli Deo gloria
Hugh Hewitt cites Redstate's THUNDER - LINK
by gamecock
yeah, anything that keeps
by Left Coast R
yeah, anything that keeps hope alive! Does anybody know what the options are for watching, or listening to the debate on the internet?
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
try here - LINK
by gamecock
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270812,00.html
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
but its making me question backing Fred when Mitt needs all the help he can get.
I see Romney as far more desireable than McCain or Huck and I'm starting to think that I need to leave the perfect candidate Fred and join up with Romney to stop McCain / Huckabee.