Redstate

Well, this says no....At least, not as much as the anti-McCain crowd says he is. By a great majority, Huckabee voters' second choice is John McCain.

I can't recall where I saw this linked from this morning, but here it is.

http://blogs.usatoday.com:80/gallup/2008/02/is-huckabee-hur.html

>He believes that government is better than private industry.

prove it. That is something I have not seen to this point.

>He believes that government should regulate speech.

CFR - e.g. McCain-Fiengold, yes. This must be addressed.

>He believers that open borders and amnesty are good policies.

False on the first. One of the things McCain learned the hard way (I hope) is that borders must be secured. I will wait and see what he says about the later. He has said that he would not support the bill he sent with Kennedy earlier back.

>He believes that man made global warming is a non-debatable proposition.

False. He does believe it, but no where does he say its non-debatable. He has said that we should leave our planet cleaner for our kids. To that extent I have no problem - what i fear is legislation which would cripple our economy and nation in the process.

>He believes that the senate has a constitutional right to filibuster judicial appointments.

True. So has every Senate since it was formed. You wont find the Senate willing to give up its power.

At the same time it is only in recent years that the Senate decided to flex its muscles. That goes for Republicans and Democrats.

Yes, he has recently given lip service to securing the borders before granting amnesty to the illegals. However, he also said recently that he would still vote for/sign the recent amnesty bill if it came up again. The bill, as I remember it, didn't do anything to secure borders.

The question is whether you believe the man's border security talk as sincere or just campaign rhetoric. For many conservatives, it comes off as dishonest as McCain hasn't really changed his stripes on the issue of illegals and amnesty.
________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.

notatool.com

It was terrible legislation, but it did mandate increased border security.

AND, he absolutely DID NOT say that he would vote for the bill if it came up again. He was asked that question in last week's CNN debate, and responded that "it wouldn't come up again" - that's all.

Come on. There are plenty of reasons not to like McCain; running off half-cocked and making more up does not become you.

In his last MTP interview he was asked if he would sign the bill if it came across his desk and he said yes. He added, "but it won't."

*Tagg Romney 2036!*

In a New Hampshire radio ad, McCain says: "I think the time is past when we argue about whether climate change is real or not."
http://www.johnmccain.com/downloads/ilistened-final.mp3

He doesn't specifically say "man made" there, but he links "The burning of oil and other fossil fuels" to climate change here: http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/04/mccain_humans_e.html

So there you go... he alleges man-made climate change and that the time to argue is over.

Others beat me to the punch on most of my points. But I'll take up the first one.
Mr. McCain thinks working for "patriotism not profit" is a wonderful phrase. The fact that you can do both seems lost on him.And didn't he also talk of "punishing" wall street for the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, even though it was government that promoted the policies leading to our current situation.

I believe that when the Democrats fillibustered President Bush'
judicial nominees, it was the first time that had been done. I remember it being all over the news. That is how we got to the gang of 14.

There occasionally were nominees who didn't get out of committee but there had never been a nominee who would have received a majority vote on the floor of the Senate who was filibustered after clearing committee. (My fading memory recalls Abe Fortas being filibustered but he (or whoever it was) did not have majority support on the floor.

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

It's not nice to call me a liar.

That piece contained no attacks on Mitt Romney; rather, I pointed out that he is not a conservative and that he obviously does have problems with actual conservatives. And with the links to which notable conservatives like Laura Ingraham can become obsessed with Romney, if it's not merely a case oe wanting to stop McCain, and conservatives be excited by McCain?

I left the door open for myself, though I acknowledged, as has he, that he has a lot of work to do. I want him to do that work. Speaking to CPAC on Thursday could be a start, but it won't be enough.

It's roughly the Catholic version of TBN.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

after a first term is a pipe dream. McCain may well chose to serve only one term, so pay real attention to his VP choice.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

If its Romney, I will hold my nose and vote for him, if its Huckabee, it would put me over the edge.

on McCain, but choosing Huckabee as VP is about the only thing McCain can do to lose my general election vote. With Huckabee on the ticket, the advantage of getting social centrists to vote for him is negated. Plus, he's a straight-up liberal on the economy and education.

He offers no upside whatsoever in a general election.

He's certainly never said it, even if a bunch of his supporters have. And any man with an ego the size required to run for President in the first place isn't going to step down.

So yes, McCain means 100% chance of 8 years of misery if he wins. The Democrat means probably 75% chance of 8 years of misery.

if his health is up to the task. That's a potentially big question, because even though his mother is in her 90s, both his father and grandfather died in their early 60s.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I don't know who is telling McCain that it is a good idea to keep parading her around in public. Sure, it shows that she's pretty mobile for an old lady but she's said some crazy things, looks pretty crazy and reminds me of how old he is. Even she doesn't make him seem younger.

*Tagg Romney 2036!*

But it is a risk. She definitely cannot be kept on message and can go off and say some stuff that would be better off left unsaid. It's hard enough to keep McCain from doing that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

McCain isn't going to win. Even if Hillary is the Dem nominee. The Dems will likely be united (as out of power parties typically are.) McCain will spend his entire campaign trying to convince Republicans to vote for him, like Bob Dole did. He won't be able to make the case, because who'd believe him, and a divided GOP cannot win. "I'm not Hillary" won't be enough to get it done.

A VP choice is important only in that it could catapult a younger conservative (if that's the choice) to be the head of the party for 2012.
________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.

notatool.com

First, why do you assume you get 8 years of McCain and not 8 years of Hillobama?

Second, if you don't think McCain is your kind of president, what pray tell do you think Hillobama will be?

NC

It doesn't matter, if he gets 4 years, he will be the nominee after that. So, its 8 years unless he decided not to seek re-election, which is a big unknown.

I am not sure I understand them, but they are interesting : )

I think the point I was trying to make was that you could end up with 8 years of Hillobama. And I am not sure how that is good for you.

NC

Clinton was something of an exception.

Look at Carter and Johnson. And as I recall, Kennedy only got popular after he took the bullet.

The rule has worked pretty well for Republicans except Bush Senior.

"If we get McCain elected, we don’t get the kind of president we want for 8 years. If Obama or Hillary is elected, then we have to suck it up for 4 years. That’s the rub."

You really think 8 years of McCain would be worse than 4 years of Hillary/Obama, replete with a strong Democratic congress?

---
According to Democrats, it’s greedy to want to keep your own money, but it’s “justice” to demand someone else’s.

--Jonah Goldberg

Yes I do. 8 Years of McCain would be far worse than 4 years of Hillary/Obama followed by 4 years of a conservative.

NC

you'll get a "conservative" after four years? It certainly hasn't worked out that way this year. Out of 5-6 legitimate candidates, only one could really be called a conservative. Why would it be so different four years from now?

Now those further to the right understand what a lot of moderate republicans had to endure with Bush... he's definitely a better choice than what the Dems trotted out, but he's light years from ideal. We held our nose. Your turn.

Do you really think that conservatives got a lot from Bush? He isn't a conservative, he is a conservative-leaning moderate. We didn't get much more than you did, if as much. Believe me, we held our noses as well, especially on the second term, and for the same reasons.

I was out of the country as a missionary in 2000, so I didn't get to see the carnage of that primary. In 2004, we were all kind of stuck with the incumbent. To my mind, Bush leans right on the least important things - that's my problem with him. I've just seen him touted as a "real conservative." I'm really beginning to think I have no idea what that means.

If anything, though, this reinforces my main point here. How can we assume that a conservative will be the nominee in 2012 if we haven't nominated one since 1980? It's not worth signing the country over to the far left for 4 years in hopes of a redemption that is unlikely to come.

Alito and Roberts.

In order to ask what we do with McCain, I had to point out that Romney was not a "conservative alternative" or even a conservative. That is not a show of bias against Romney and it is not an insult; rather, it's the truth.

Your attempts to discredit be would be laughable if they were not annoying.

You wear your own bias on your sleeve. (Tagg Romney in 2036?)

I always have. The fact that you still deny that you are biased against Mitt Romney is stunning. You are either dishonest about it so that you can continue to pretend to be objective, or you've somehow convinced yourself that your opinion is truth.

*Tagg Romney 2036!*

by Randall Hoven. He gives a breakdown of MCain,s ACU rating. It is not as good as McCain would have you believe.

For example he had a rating of 65 in 2006.

McCain is not the conservative that everyone is trying to make him. If he was conservative we would not have McCain-Fingold.

I just do not think I can vote for him if he wins the nomination.

and government service can make life in business hellish if the wrong policies are implemented. This is my objection to the status quo. Look at what "we" have wrought.

Government leaders are needed to stop the catastrophic legislation favoring business over national survival. They are needed to root out lobbyists posing as legislative aides and writing legislation that guts our economy.

Please, give us people who are smart enough to craft a strategic plan for our country and smart enough to dig into the details to stop the crap that is going on.

"I still wonder how a Senator with a lifetime rating of +80 from the ACU can be called a Liberal?"

First, there are two McCain records--the very conservative McCain prior to 2000 who had a rating in the upper 80s and frequently scored in the 90s. Since 2000, his record has averaged 73 which places him in the bottom 20% of Republicans in the Senate, most of whom are from purple/blue states.

Also, ACU ratings are not weighted, i.e. a vote to recommit a bill to eliminate $100 million dollars in spending counts the same as a vote to limit free speech.

It's the same reason so many moderate first-term Dems in the House have started voting against approving the House Diary, a routine party-line vote every day, so that when the run for reelection they can demonstrate their independence by touting that the voted against the 'leadership' X number of times. That vote weighs as much as a vote to withdraw the troops from Iraq.

There's probably a reason that David Keene, president of the ACU, chose to endorse Romney rather than McCain.

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

I still wonder how a Senator with a lifetime rating of +80 from the ACU can be called a Liberal?

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Since you have a concrete statistical value for how many of them oppose McCain, I suppose you also have a similarly solid definition of a "true conservative."

So much for Reagan's 11th Commandment...

However, made-up "statistics" and positions reflect poorly on all involved.

Mitt Romney said what he said and it was reported how it was reported.

Here, from ABC News, April 3, 2007: Romney Embraces Private Iraq 'Timetables'; And here, from The Hill newspaper, April 4, 2007: Romney advocates non-public Iraq benchmarks ["timetables and milestones"].

Any word on Mitt Romney's attack on Ronald Reagan as "adamantly pro-choice"?

But of course, you already knew that because you are just as disingenuous as the McCain attacks. It wasn't just timetables. The McCain campaign twisted the meaning of words just as good as any liberal Democrat. Of course Romney mentioned timetables, but the McCain campaign then spread the lie that timetables are code for withdraw. You, McCain, and the rest of the McCainiacs know that Romney did not mean withdraw but what is a little lie when the presidency is at stake?

as a result of success or failure. The dems were calling for public withdrawal in defeat. Mitt never called for either.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

I'm embarrassed that I defended you previously when others accused you of being biased against Mitt. It's so glaringly obvious. It's almost like this is personal with you.

It's disgusting to even try to defend the "timetables" attack against Romney. This dishonest attack by McCain was the final straw for me with McCain and because of it, I will not vote for him and may vote against him. It's that dishonest. Of course, your interpretation of what happened only proves once again how biased you are against Romney.

As for Reagan, well, you're probably the first I've heard to challenge this and yet it's been repeated so many times by so many people. You want to act like it's only Romney and Laura Ingraham that have said this but it's been repeated on basically every news show out there over the last year - but that doesn't help you in your crusade against Mitt. I thought it was pretty much accepted as fact that Reagan was pro-choice and switched. He signed one of the most liberal abortion laws ever that caused a major increase in the number of abortions. Just because he was pro-choice at that time doesn't mean he was "pro-abortion." As you said, he stated that this law was signed with the health of the mother in mind - yet, that was Mitt's rationale for being pro-choice; he had a relative that died from a botched abortion. He too, was never in favor of more abortions. When you add in the fact that Roe v Wade had been law for 20+ years when Mitt said what he said, then you have a more legitimate argument here than Reagan did.

I don't expect you to be able to respond rationally, since your hatred for Mitt is apparently overwhelming your good sense.

*Tagg Romney 2036!*

As in classified between ourselves and Iraq so they understand the seriousness of the situation (and always negotiable down the road) are entirely different than legally mandated timetables from Congress for the enemy to see in public and plan to. Not the same thing at all and McCain knows it. Nice try.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

Either we're setting a cut and run date, or we aren't. And you're pretty optimstic if you think we can have the timetable and share it with foreign powers without it leaking to the terrorists.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Pre-surge a message had to be sent to the Iraqi government the clock was by in large ticking, that was a political reality. Pressuring them in private certain timetables had to be met or there would be consequences may not have been wise and would probably leak, although it could always be denied since it was in private. It's just one of those "look buddy, between you and I in this room and I'll deny it outside of here, here's the situation" moments. That's different than mandated withdraw by a date and by law from Congress, it just is.

In Romney's world, one McCain will never understand since it entails being a "manager for profit" it's the difference between a trade secret and transparency.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

To me, it's not much different.

The Democrats make our cutting and running public.
Romney would keep it a secret.

To me, there's not much different between those two positions. It still amounts to the U.S. committing itself to leaving before the enemy is destroyed.

The real difference is McCain: We need to escalate, not set a timetable for withdrawal (either public or private). And by escalating, the enemy will be forced to withdraw instead.

In war, there is no substitute for victory.

100% pro-life rating?
Never voted for a tax increase?
Voted for every conservative Judicial nominee from 3 Presidents?
Put his entire campaign on the line in favor of the surge?

Sorry, you can dilute yourself and convince yourself his record is awful all you want. It's not. He's got an above average record by any objective standard.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

Americans for Better Immigration Reform give his voting record on immigration issues an overall Career D and he gets F's in several categories.

Illegal immigration is an issue that is important to a lot of conservatives but for some reason it is not part of the ACU Ratings or John McCain would have a MUCH lower score.

California and Arizona overwhelminghly went for McCain (ok, I know it would be pretty pathetic if Arizona did not go for McCain). Florida, NY and Ill. also went for McCain. It seems to me that McCain's votes on immigration have not really hurt him in places where there are lots of illegal immigrants. I wonder if he may not actually be winning votes because of, and not in spite of, some of his votes on immigration.

NC

That exactly 100% pro-life and typical of McCain eye-poking.

N/T

Why does any legislation with his name on it reek of liberalism? McCain-Kennedy? McCain-Feingold? McCain-Lieberman? Sure his votes over the course of his career average out nice, but in the last 8 years? I think you might be diluting yourself.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

We can't cut off our noses to spite our faces - pure and simple.

The metaphor I like to use is "drilling holes in the boat to spite the captain".

A correct metaphor would be 'drilling holes in the boat expecting someone else to patch them'.

because it says "I don't like you, Capitan, so I'm going to sink your ship", but the person doesn't have the foresight to realize that he is going down with the ship too. With a socialist running the country, we will all suffer.

is that it places blame solely on one side.

If I, and a large number of people say "If McCain is the nominee, that is a line I will not cross. Be warned." and then a different group of people say "screw that, we're nominating him anyways" and as a result he loses, I will take responsibility for my share of that outcome. But part of that responsibility will also lie in the other group. They may have decided they could win without my group. Or they may have decided that we weren't really serious. No matter. They also bear responsibility.

So, trying to convince me that my choice was selfish, not admitting that theirs was every bit as selfish, well, good luck with that.

I'm with you on everything you said, but I wouldn't rule out a Hillary nomination. You never know what a power-hungry Clinton is going to do when backed into a corner.

he appoints Joe Lieberman as SecDef, thus allowing the R governor there to appoint an R, canceling out AZ :)

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

I think Gen. Pace or Petraeus would be better

be a civilian for something like seven years before you can be appointed SecDef.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

He could appoint Chuckie Schumer as Attorney General. And Barbara Boxer to the EPA and put Russ Feingold in charge of the FCC and maybe the FEC too and maybe put Leaky Leahy in charge of Homeland Security. I bet we could think of places for his buddies Joe Biden and Dick Durbin too. A lot of these would be replaced by new Democrats but there would be something gained by getting these really senior incumbant Democrat Senators out of the Senate.

I had not even started to consider the exciting bi-partisan possiblities for McCain to reach out to the liberals as he structures his cabinet. It could be a real strategic coup for Republicans. /sarc

don't let it eat you up, son.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

If I recall correctly, the electorate is something like one-third liberal, one-third moderate, and one-third conservative. The liberals nearly always line up behind the Democractic candidate, and the conservatives usually back the Republican nominee. So the moderates end up being the kingmakers and therefore are enormously important in the general election.

So it's no surprise that candidates tend to track towards the center after being nominated (or at least appear to do so). Since the Dems have again put two of their most liberal candidates forward, it seems like a center-right (moderately conservative? conservatively moderate?) candidate like McCain would have an opening.

For me, anyway, McCain is conservative enough. And as someone mentioned above, we have 7 very good reasons to want him to succeed.

Based on current events I'm not disputing that. But without ideology, what is it? A group of people trying to get elected for being elected's sake? Trying to be elected just to keep the other side from it?

I reject that as a good or desirable thing. Without ideology, there is literally no point in being a Republican.

is what parties do. Republicans of course have principles -- patriotism, nationalism, reverence for life, small government, pro-business, etc -- that guide what they do in office and shape the agenda. So it's not quite the Darwinian struggle you protray. Conservatives share these principles and hence may often vote republican. When the agenda of Republicans conlicts with Conservative ideology then you will have to decide what is important to you. Rarely will you have no conflict.

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report