I would vote for McCain over any of the Democratic candidates, and I don't really care how he rates on somebody's scale of "conservatism." But there are several things that really bother me about him:
1)I don't think he understands how the economy works, or that the subject is of much interest to him
2)He seems quite arrogant, and not all that intelligent
3)He doesn't seem to have much of an appreciation for the importance of free speech, as indicated by his "campaign finance reform" legislation.
photoncourier.blogspot.com
I take your point in the abstract but not in the specifics. The issues on which McCain has differed from the party base's views most are among the most serious: immigration, judges, free speech. In some cases, immigration in particular, his disagreement with the party faithful is more accurately described as visceral revulsion.
The lifetime ACU rating of 82.3 is also a misleading statistic: as Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out at the Corner, McCain's most recent ratings, 2000-2006, were 81,68,78,80,72,80,65. I looked back even earlier: 1999 was 77. 1998 was 68. 1997 was 80. You have to go back to 1995 and '96 [91 and 95] to find anything over 81. I think the 10-year average of 75 -- also, coincidentally, the 5-year average, and pretty close to the two-year average -- is more representative of the McCain of today. The issues at play have changed a lot over the past decade.
Of course these numbers are silly, because they don't weight by significance. I'd give enormous weight to McCain's support of the War even when it wasn't popular: and likewise enormous weight to his immigration and free speech policies (IMHO awful).
I decided a while ago that I would be a one-issue voter [read: supporter; I'm not an American] on the subject of the War for the near future, so if he's the Republican candidate he'll get my imaginary vote because I'd rather him be in the White House if the Mideast explodes than HRC or Obama. But let's not try to pretend that the average Republican shouldn't have to hold his nose a little to do so.
It is no accident that Weakly Standard goes after Santorum on *ad-hominem* grounds, rather than dealing with Santorum's issues.
Limbaugh (both of them) have it exactly right: McCain's "maverick" appeal is a direct result of his adoption of statist and anti-constitutional policies. McCain's betrayal has engendered a deep mistrust and even visceral hatred by constitutional and economic conservatives.
"The former House majority leader said, without a trace of irony in his voice, that John McCain "has done more to hurt the Republican party than any elected official I know of." Yeah, right! It's a toss-up: McCain or W.? [W., I say.]
This isn't mere hyperbole: one Hell of a lot of Republicans are holding back the small donations. Some are joining Libertarian, Constitution or Conservative parties locally. Don't be shocked when Hillary takes office... more than just a few donations will be withheld. If it comes to a choice between Hillary Clinton or John McClinton, many will ask "why bother?"
DSM
I think a lot of this criticism is grossly overblown.
Take, for example, judges. Chances are Samuel Alito would never have been confirmed to the Supreme Court, and conservative judges to appellate courts, had it not been for the "Gang of 14", who guaranteed that conservative judges would not be filibustered by the Democrats and that Democrats would not shut down the Senate in retaliation for Bill Frist using the "nuclear option".
On immigration, his position is closer to Ronald Reagan's than is any other candidate's. Not only did Reagan enact an amnesty bill, but in his farewell speech he declared his vision of the United States as a place where "the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here."
McCain-Feingold. I disagree with this legislation, but it was signed into law by President Bush, yet he never seems to get the blame.
And one item that you missed, the budget process and earmarks. As with Iraq and Afghanistan, McCain is the candidate who had this most right. He wrote on Porkbusters that if the GOP failed to fix the problem not only would they lose both houses of Congress, but that they deserved to lose them. And lose them they did.
"McCain's "maverick" appeal is a direct result of his adoption of statist and anti-constitutional policies."
Except for immigration, because immigration restriction is certainly statist.
"Some [Republicans] are joining Libertarian, Constitution or Conservative parties locally"
The Constitution and Libertarian Parties can politely be described as crank parties, and I say that as a small-l libertarian. For example, the Constitution Party seeks "to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations." The Libertarian Party's 2004 candidate, Michael Badnarik, is a Truther.
The Conservative Party of New York is, by definition, a local party and was founded in 1962 in response to the Rockefeller Republicans who controlled the state GOP. Many people have long been members who have no problems with supporting the national GOP.
And, Ran, you've fulminated again McCain for some time now, but have never really responded to any of the counterpoints I've made. And calling him John "McClinton" is just laughably off the mark.
Without denying McCain's great sacrifices for his country as a POW, I think he is getting most of his mileage from it in a pretty shameless way. His contributions as an elected Senator include the McCain/Feinglod act and the failed immigration amnesty of 2007. His legislative record is pretty bad from a Conservative standpoint and I do agree with one of the previous writers that he is not a strong supporter of free speech.
I also do not think that anything in his background points to any particular ability to grasp economic issues...after all, has he ever run a payroll or anything involving team building, concensus, etc...?
Although he is far more experienced than an Obama or even Hillary (who is showing clearly that she is nothing without Bill's coat tail), he still falls very short in important areas.
I wouldn't vote for him, ever.
Bring on Romney (especially now that Giuliani is a goner!).
Bruce R., dragging out CU ratings without issue weighting is just so much drag. Could be anything under that boustier, I don't care how much hairspray and lipstick.
There was no 'point' to the broad brush you've used to paint local libertarian, constitutional and conservative parties. Yeah, so some are cranks, some are Birchers, some do actually have their heads screwed on. That's a point? The fact is, "Not One Dime" etc. demonstrates a very real widening of the gap between the Blue Blood Elites of the Party and the Base. It matters not where Republicans go, so long as they are leaving.
On the issues of importance to me - the things I care about - there happens to be little substantive difference between these two "centrist/moderates" who's ambition trumps all. [Just wait for the McCain-Lieberman Act to resurface.] Laughable indeed! Borders, the War, Taxes, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, the Second Amendment, economics, "global warming" - neither has the credibility or experience I'd like to see in a CIC. Neither McClinton appeals to me.
If it comes to a contest between Hillary and Mac, liberals and "independents" will pull for Hillary. Republican faithfuls - hundreds and hundreds of them - will pull the lever for McCain. Conservatives will pull up the sheets and snore. Gents bet that Hillary takes him by four points.
Now that Fred is out, I'll hold my nose and support Mitt.
Amazing. All these people are showing up and announcing "I wouldn't vote for him, ever."
So, to pick one allegation, if McCain's "grasp [of] economic issues" is so weak, then why does Phil Gramm support him? (He's the campaign co-chair.) Is there any Republican more qualified to speak on economic issues than Gramm? Is there anyone better suited to be the next President's primary economic advisor?
I think we're dealing with McCain Derangement Syndrome here.
Hey Bruce... I already have full-blown BDS! What's one more?
I did *not* say I won't vote for him. I did say, here or elsewhere, that it's open. Statistically, that sort of ambivalence can be deadly to a candidate's hopes. There are a lot of us out there.
BR:
On judges: McCain's Gang of 14 deal has been a subject of a fair bit of recent discussion. If you don't consider Andy McCarthy & Mark Levin's analysis persuasive then I'm unlikely to find anything to add. Certainly William Haynes deserved better. But I object most strongly to the G14 deal's presuppositions in principle as a misunderstanding of advisc and consent and an unjustifiable weakening of executive power, and that's a more permanent problem than whether or not Alito got on the bench.
On free speech: like most conservatives I *do* blame W for McCain-Feingold, just differently. W knew it wasn't right but chose not to exercise a veto. Not an act of political courage, but I could imagine (although I don't actually believe this) that he thought he was making a difficult choice to protect his political capital. McCain actually dreamed up the #%#$%#^ thing, and has no excuse whatsoever. Zero.
On immigration: surely you jest. The rank and file of the Republican party was in open revolt; not since the idiocy of the Harriet Miers nomination when everyone simultaneously went "WTH?!" has as deep a line been drawn in the sand. Worse even than tactical disagreements about immigration policy was the patent disgust that McCain showed for anyone who questioned the Bush-Kennedy amnesty plan. (Anecdotally he's generally like that with people who disagree with him, but I don't know those stories are true.)
Comparisons with Reagan's '86 act make McCain look worse, not better: it didn't work then on a much smaller scale.. and if you're going to quote Reagan on "the doors were open to anyone", I'll also quote him that "This country has lost control of its borders. No country can do that and survive"-- and by any measure the situation is far less under control now than it was back then. And Reagan had the guts to call it an amnesty, which the Straight Talk Express couldn't manage.
As for "one item that I missed": I was listing disagreements with the base, not agreements. You could have also mentioned that except for his free-speech intervention against prolifers, he's generally been a strong supporter of the movement.
The McCain of 2008 is an idiosyncratic right-leaning centrist. He is not a conservative and cannot be relied on for conservative policies (much less libertarian ones). If recognizing this means that I suffer from MDS then so be it. Seems to be a lot of it going around among people whose analysis I tend to respect.
This race is beginning to remind me a lot of 2004 with the Democrats doing everything in their power to lose.
McCain is the GOP candidate most likely to draw independents away from either Clinton or Obama, and, except for camopaign-finance regulation, I have no profound policy differences with him. Note: I could support any of the current crop of GOP candidates with the possible exception of Huckabee who strikes me, as it does many others, as the GOP's answer to Jimmy Carter.
McCain is strong on foreign policy and was one of the few Republicans who recognized the damage the earmarks/budget mess was doing to the party. He's receiving economic advice from Phil Gramm, who I consider to be the most qualified Republican politician to speak on economic matters. While he angered a lot of Republicans at the time, McCain and the Gang of 14 were right, and Frist was wrong, when it came to handling Democratic obstructionism in confirming appellate judges.
Mitt Romney may have turned around the 2002 Olympics, but his performance on the Big Dig isn't exactly awe-inspiring and the per capita tax burden rose from 9.8% to 10.5% under his stewardship in Massachusetts.
And here I was thinking that it was the President's job to secure the borders! Isn't that something?
Bush has clearly failed Americans on this count by doing absolutely nothing of substance, and should McCain be elected, with Hernandez as his adviser on immigration issues, look for an open border with Mexico starting on Jan 21, 2009.
This is not MDS, this is what both McCain and Hernandez have openly stated.
I guess the opposite of MDS would be MPCG (McCain Pink Colored Glasses), right Bruce?
"look for an open border with Mexico starting on Jan 21, 2009.
This is not MDS, this is what both McCain and Hernandez have openly stated." - Andre
What McCain says:
"As president, I will secure the border. I will restore the trust Americans should have in the basic competency of their government. A secure border is an essential element of our national security. Tight border security includes not just the entry and exit of people, but also the effective screening of cargo at our ports and other points of entry." [External Link]
But that doesn't fit the nativist spin, does it?
There's what McCain says, and what McCain does.
[External Link]
I know which I find more revealing.
P.S. Since McCain himself claims that Hernandez "supports his policies", it seems quite reasonable to presume that McCain's actual policies are at least consistent with Hernandez's policies.
It seems that what irks some people about McCain's position on immigration is that he doesn't say he will use the coercive power of the state to deport 11 million people, who are currently living and working in the U.S., because they lack the appropriate government-issued immigration papers.
Oh, and McCain is a "statist"...
Victor Davis Hanson, author of Mexifornia, is satisfied with McCain's position.
"To those more liberal, McCain insists that the surge is working and we will secure Iraq — only to explain to conservatives why we can’t, either practically or morally, deport all 11 million illegal aliens. He seems more opposed to pork barrel and deficit spending than doctrinaire conservatives." [External Link]
Watching talk show host Mark Levin, et al., fulminate against McCain at National Review's The Corner, I got to wondering what NR founder Bill Buckley thinks. The only Republican Presidential primary candidates to whom he has contributed money since 1980 appear to be Phil Gramm in 1995, Steve Forbes in 1999, George Bush in 2000, and John McCain in 2007. [External Link]
Posted at 2008-01-29 04:51:41 [PermaLink]Ah, when confronted with an inconvenient fact, change the subject to an unsubstantiated counter claim. Your cites may be indicative of what certain other people think about McCain's policy, but McCain's staff selection tells us what McCain thinks about McCain's policy. Horse mouth and all that.
Posted at 2008-01-29 11:35:38 [PermaLink]"McCain's staff selection tells us what McCain thinks about McCain's policy"
Like what? That he's getting economic advice from Phil Gramm?
Oh, I get it. Your still stuck on the immigration thing. What realistic alternative to amnesty do you propose? Perhaps we should mobilize the National Guard to round up 11 million men, women, and children, load them onto trucks and deport them because they lack propoer documentation.
I wonder if you'd feel the same way if they were Anglo Saxon?
Face it, no President, not Huckabee, not Romney, not Giuliani, not Clinton, not Obama is going to start mass deportations. The best we can hope for is to secure the border and find a way to integrate those who are here, and want to stay here, into our society. And that is McCain's position, and the de facto position of the other candidates, as well.
There has been an irrational hatred of McCain by the lunatic fringe since he denounced the POW MIA fraud nearly two decades ago. [External Link] He was right then and he is right now.
Conservatives are beginning to amaze me in their inability to see what's really at stake here. This election is about more than McCain and his inability to follow conservative principals.
How is handing the whole country over to far left liberals a suitable alternative to McCain?
There is a serious difference between McCain and a purebread liberal who is bent on destroying ALL conservative values permanantly.
Today’s liberal is not like the Bill Clinton’s Presidency. It’s moved radically left... Clinton is now considered a moderated, and loosing it’s power because it’s not radically liberal enough.
The Democratic candidate that is surging now, Obama, is bottom of the barrel liberal. He is about to take power, unless conservatives stop fighting and get serious.
This would give liberals what they will treat as a clear sign from America that is it ready to move sharply to the left. Not slightly to the left.
Cherry picking our candidate is exactly what got us INTO this mess, and if conservatives aren’t careful, they will allow our country spiral out of control.
There is no such thing as a quick recovery from 4 years of radical liberalism unchecked. We may be facing what will take years and years of damage to undo. What’s more, there’s no guarantee that it WILL be undone. Have conservatives completely forgotten Roe v. Wade and other extremely important issues?
Questioning McCain was right and highly useful for a time and a season. Many of us wish we had acted sooner to support Romney or Huck.... But staying home on election day allows liberals a pass to capture all THREE branches of Government. Our kids deserve better out of us.
I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice their own belief or convictions, but we have a serious problem here that requires that we do everything we can to minimize the damage this election can cause to our society.
I’d rather have 50% of McCains ear, than 0% of a liberals ear.
Give it some thought, friends.
Danny Vice
[External Link]
[External Link]