Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Just a Company of American paratroopers, a guitar plugged
into the outpost's PA system, and a whole lot of demolitions.
George Will suggests that John McCain should join the Democrat party.
By Spiral Posted in 2008 — Comments (116) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I'm pragmatic enough to give Blue-State Republican Senators a little bit of slack. It never surprised me too much that the former US Senator from Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee, could never be bothered by voting with his Republicans. When your home state votes more Democrat in presidential elections than just about any state in the union, It's reasonable to assume that to vote otherwise is a ticket to retirement. In light of the 2006 Rhode Island election results.... Ooops.
Same for Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from the left of center state of Maine. I understand that they both have to say to their voters back home, "But I'm not one of those Republicans," in order to get reelected. Norm Coleman of Minnesota? Minnesota has been on the brink of voting Republian for president for the first time since 1972. And I am often surprised by how much of a "traditional" Republican Norm Coleman seems to be, considering the state he represents.
But it's hard to understand the McCain mentality: represent a medium-Red State like Arizona while voting as if you were representing the upper-East side of the New York Times editorial page. I'm ready to designate John McCain a Blue State Republican.
But syndicated columnist George Will goes one better. Will asks a more perceptive question: Why hasn't John McCain joined the Democrat party?
In the New Hampshire debate, McCain asserted that corruption is the reason drugs currently cannot be reimported from Canada. The reason is "the power of the pharmaceutical companies." When Mitt Romney interjected, "Don't turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys," McCain replied, "Well, they are."There is a place in American politics for moralizers who think in such Manichaean simplicities. That place is in the Democratic Party, where people who talk like McCain are considered not mavericks but mainstream.
McCain's demonization of the pharmaceutical companies would be easier to accept if it were the only weakness in his conservative resume. But if we have been paying attention to McCain for the past 15 or so years, we would understand that McCain's conservative resume has quite a few items veering over onto the Left of center margins.
Again, Will puts it bluntly.
McCain is, however, an unlikely conciliator because he is quick to denigrate the motives, and hence the characters, of those who oppose him. He promiscuously accuses others of "corruption," the ubiquity of which he says justifies McCain-Feingold's expansive government regulation of the quantity, timing and content of campaign speech.McCain says he would nominate Supreme Court justices similar to Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito. But how likely is he to nominate jurists who resemble those four: They consider his signature achievement (McCain-Feingold) constitutionally dubious.
This gets us back to the "Democrats for McCain" or "McCain for the Democrats" issue. Did a key McCain advisor suggest to John Kerry's presidential campaign that he should ask McCain to be his running mate? It seems to be so.
In 2004, one of John McCain's closest associates, John Weaver, spoke to John Kerry about the possibility of McCain running as Kerry's vice presidential running mate. In "No Excuses," Bob Shrum's memoir of his role in numerous presidential campaigns, including Kerry's, Shrum writes that Weaver assured Kerry that "McCain was serious about the possibility of teaming up with him," and Kerry approached McCain. He, however, was more serious about seeking the 2008 Republican nomination.But was it unreasonable for Kerry to think McCain might be comfortable on a Democratic ticket? Not really.
I do seem to remember McCain sounding Democrat-friendly in 2004. When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth started running ads criticizing John Kerry for his Vietnam war and anti-war record, McCain decounced the Swift Vets as "dishonest and dishonorable," as if McCain had received personal knowledge of Kerry's heroism from his North Vietnam prison.
But McCain sang a more pro-Democrat tune than I had remembered
"I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy," he said.
Maybe John McCain took George Will's advice and never told us about it?
Oh please, don't start that again
by Finrod
First of all, that 82 became 65 in 2006.
Second, if you can find any other serious Republican candidate in the last 100 years that has said less than 10 years before running for President as a Republican something even approximately equivalent to "I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy," then I will personally apologize to you and take back everything bad I've said about John McCain. I personally have a LOT of problems with the views and philosophy of the Democratic Party, and I do not want to vote for someone that has none.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
It is a well known fact
by Illinicon
that Presidential candidates move to the center in the 18-24 months before a campaign.
McCain '08
Voting against Bush's tax cuts was well before your excused timeframe. As was forming the Gang of 14, and, well, pretty much nearly everything that those of us that loathe McCain bring up.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Its a well known thought that...
by RedHotandinBlue
that a GOP candidates should be moving FROM Right to Left; McCain has to go FROM the Left to Right to reach your political "center".
Joke
And one year ...
by Leverkuhn
... is not representative of a whole body of work.
FYI, Herbert Hoover was a prominent Democrat (having actually served in Woodrow Wilson's administration) until the 1920's when he switched to the GOP.[1] In 1920 he was actually seriously considered as a potential Democratic presidential candidate. Moreover, Abraham Lincoln was a member of the Whig Party less than five years before running for President as a Republican, President Reagan was a life-long Democrat before switching parties in the 1960's, and Ulysses S. Grant voted Democrat all through the 1850's before the Civil War made him a national hero and a potential Republican presidential candidate in 1868.[2]
Ask and you shall receive.
[1] http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0141120-0&templatename=/article/ar...
[2] http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Grant-Eisenhower/Grant-Ulysses-S.html
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
Strays from the ranch a few times!
by pscblazer20
A few!..my goodness you need to look at Rudy's hit piece on him today and thats just on Taxes!, the number of votes Against Tax Cuts are astounding.
This is not the "Kossification of the right" this is the right trying to save itself from the Leftwing insurgency from within itself.
You could argue that Bush in 2000
by Illinicon
minus the the tax cuts ran as a Democrat, because he ran on:
* a federal takeover of public schools
* a massive new entitlement program
* a humble foreign policy with no involvement in foriegn wars (alot of blame America firsters like Ron Paul liked that)
McCain '08
You mean
by zuiko
* School choice (this was supposed to be part of the bill)
* A smaller entitlement program than his opponent was offering
* A foreign policy that was conducted in America's interests, not anybody else's
Doesn't sound like he ran as a Democrat to me.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
McCain is also vigorously in favor of school choice [1], he's undoubtedly one of the most fiscally conservative Senators in Washington (I would say the most fiscally conservative, except for Senator Coburn), and he is right on pretty much all the major foreign policy questions (Iraq, Afghanistan, and WOT).
So ... if you liked those things about George W. Bush in 2000, why not support McCain in 2008?
[1] http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/John_McCain_Education.htm
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
The same Rudy that endorsed Mario Cuomo? -nt
by matpruitt
"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
Threadjack much? (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.
Given a choice between a guy
by mbecker908
who would endorse Cuomo v a guy who would defend Kerry and question the SwiftVets while considering being Kerry's running mate, I'll take Rudy EVERY time.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Amen, mbecker (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.
Especially as Cuomo had Mayor Rudy, fiscally, by the
by streetwise
well, you know.
Also, the state of New York under Cuomo did not have its own foreign policy a la Kerry.
its not "strays of the ranch"...
by kyle8
it is more like repeatedly attacking, frustrating, and insulting conservatives over a period of at least twelve years, then expecting us to vote for him.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Strays from the ranch?
by cbs
McCain opened up his own ranch years ago. That's why many of us aren't too fond of the beef he's offering right now....tastes too much like a donkey.
Starting the timer..
by Finrod
.. how long before someone says 'well, George Will is for Romney, of course he's sandbagging McCain'?
Shouldn't take long now.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Actually it was going to be more like " well Will's for Rudy"
by PopulistConservative
I have sort of figured George Will was a bit of a Rudybot, but what do I know. The funny thing is, is that George Will wrote an article earlier talking about how we should be happy with our top three candidates - at the time that was Rudy McRomney. For him to basically say that McCain isn't all that bad and then to say that McCain should be a Democrat right before McCain threatens Rudy in Florida smells like Rudy botting to me.
The idea that McCain should be a Democrat is totally ridiculous!
by PopulistConservative
The idea that McCain should be a Democrat is totally ridiculous!
McCain support for the war is goes against a necessary litmus test for being a Democrat – just ask Joe Lieberman. John McCain’s pro – life position and strong pro – life record is against a litmus test for pretty much every Dems but Southern Democrats. His support for maintaining the Bush tax-cuts is against all Democrats who can hope to get anywhere in national politics, same for his opposition to national health – care. These are four big issues that McCain is way more conservative than the Democrats on.
McCain running as a Democrat would be the equivalent of a combination of Ron on foreign policy, Rudy on Social issues, and a Hillary Clinton on fiscal issues running for the nomination of our party. On life, on taxes, on Health Care, and especially on Iraq McCain is clearly not a Democrat. You can argue that McCain should be an independent and I will consider the argument, but the idea of John McCain being a Democrat is too ridiculous to warrant consideration.
Also don't forget that McCain has been on both sides of the tax cut issue. Even Hillary voted for the Iraq war, originally.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
No,
by PopulistConservative
Obviously on the War, on a massive overtaking of health care by the Government, and on life, McCain is way more of a Conservative than a liberal. The fact that McCain when he scores the lowest in the Senate scores high 60s on the Republican side should that he sides with Conservatives more often than liberals. I just don't think there's a good case to be made for John McCain being left of center. He's defninitely left of what alot of Redstaters wish was center, but if you step out of the blogosphere into the real world you will find that McCain is right of center. So I can accept calling him a moderate conservative or even saying perhaps that he leans toward being a centrist, but to say that he's a democrat of any kind is just stretching credibility.
McCain was WITH the LEFT when the War started!
by RedHotandinBlue
He sounded like Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid on the GWOT and on tax cuts. He is a vindictive hot headed brat who gets a pass ON EVERYTHING because of his "War Hero" status; that I have had about enough of for a lifetime. Good to see John Kerry McCain back in the race.
Anyone remember the news in 04; Kerry wants McCain as VP then Kerry said McCain "asked to be my VP"? Lets look at both scenarios. If Kerry wanted McCain does anyone think it was for his Conservative credentials and or SUPPORT FOR THE WAR!? Doubtful. If it was McCain begging to be VP, what does that mean, hum?
Denial is bad.
Considering.
by Urbanus et instructus
Everyone one of the front running candidates has breached orthodoxy on more then one occasion, I'm just curious to see where the eventual nomination will land.
Romney- Has molded himself into the perfect generic conservative, and done a horrible job at that. In an era where government incompetence is painfully obvious, he chose to make social conservatism an issue and highlighted just how much he changed his views. He should have ran as the intellectual competent conservative, but instead has ran a campaign that can't be called efficient by any means. His personal fortune has been his only sustaining quality.
Rudy- He is very good on fiscal issues, has genuine experience and talks tough where it counts. The problem is his unrepentant stance on abortion, he could have done a switch to pro-life and approached it the way Romney did. The establishment was already lining up behind him, but instead he has stuck to his views, and has lost the support of a key member of the coalition that conservatives need to win.
Huckabee- A powerful orator that is the standard bearer for the evangelical rank-and-file, but he hasn't moved beyond his only base of support. His embrace of populist rhetoric infused with a religious tone is unacceptable to the fiscal wing, which is sad really. His oratory abilities would have made him a dangerous candidate had he been smarter.
Thompson- A conservative that was acceptable to everyone in the coalition, but his late entry into the electoral process and his disdain for necessary pandering has rendered him dead.
He didn't combat the "no fire in the belly" narrative hard enough, and because of it he has suffered. This is his own fault, the candidate is responsible for the campaign.
McCain- A known quantity, he upsets conservatives with his willingness to work with Democrats, breaches of conservative principals, etc. Ironically since he has a decent enough pro-life record, is a fiscal hawk, and a national security hawk. He might end up being the defacto candidate on the basis he is less likely to kill the Regan coalition.
The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein
McCain has absolutely no excuse
by mbecker908
so far as his reelection is concerned. He couldn't lose an election in AZ if he was caught with a live boy and a dead girl.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I'm curious.
by Urbanus et instructus
What do you mean by "no excuse". Are you using them in reference to his breaches of conservative principals?
The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein
Yes. He can do whatever he
by mbecker908
pleases. The only possible opponent who could give him any kind of run is Janet Napolitano. There are no other well known candidates in the Dem party.
His F/U ratings are meaningless.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
You mean to tell me that Franz has had no success in
by PopulistConservative
getting kind of organization set up to defeat McCain. How does Franz expect to win the election if he can't even defeat your least favorite Senator from your home state. :)
Franz rightly notes that being
by mbecker908
a Senator is like chasing cars in your sleep. Takes no talent & accomplishes nothing.
No interest...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I thought maybe he would be interested in running you for
by PopulistConservative
running you for Senate.
He polled poorly in AZ during the summer of 2007
by Balfour Conservative
under 50%, according to rasmussen, supposedly the death knell for an incumbent.
Not only that
by zuiko
Norm Coleman of Minnesota? Minnesota has been on the brink of voting Republian for president for the first time since 1972. And I am often surprised by how much of a "traditional" Republican Norm Coleman seems to be, considering the state he represents.
But Norm Coleman WAS a Democrat and even ran Wellstone's campaign in 1996. McCain's got no excuse.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
This is big new development in the race. Rudy attacks McCain. I do not believe either Thompson or Huckabee have attacked McCain in this way. From National Review's Corner
In 2004, McCain Said He Would Not Support Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. McCain: “I would have—I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 4/11/04)
Rudy does seem to have the strongest tax cutting record of the Republican candidates for president. Perhaps Giuliani's "I'm bad; I'm nationwide" strategy will pay off for him. If he would only convert to being pro-life, I'd join his campaign.
"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
More McCainBotting (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.
He didn't endorse the Clinton Crime Bill?
by matpruitt
Am I wrong?
"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
You're a bot.
by Finrod
Pray tell, what does the Clinton Crime Bill have to do with taxes?
You keep popping up and throwing up points that have nothing to do with the current thread. It's annoying and just makes you and the candidate you support look like twits.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Well, they are.
by mikefisk
McCain's comments on tax incidence sound part and parcel along with Huckabee's populism (which seems to have taken a page from the playbook of William Jennings Bryan), and that makes me wonder if there is much to McCain's "principled conservatism" other than being unabashedly pro-military.
Obviously, with my background being more in economics, a lot of the things that McCain says just give me the creeps, but the same can be said, sadly, of nearly every single candidate running on both parties, it seems like...
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
I could look past his pro-choice stance but,
by Conservative Paul
there is just too much other baggage. At this point I will get behind Giuliani should he get the nod. The liberal rino's are the only two that I am having a hard time getting behind. The fear of Hillary's Health Care plan may be the only reason I vote for one of those two.
Wow!!!
by Limited Government
Everytime I think for a minute that "McCain wouldn't be so bad," I read an article like this and it make me mad for having thought about it.
I highly encourage everyone to read the linked article from George Will. Must reading for anyone struggling with whether McCain would be so bad.
BTW, George Will's article is an excellent blue-print for an "attack" (read: truthful criticism) ad against John McCain. I hope somebody runs it.
unless you are flyerhawk
by David Hinz
that is a copyright violation. He has the copyright on Wow™ as a headline.
I though it was "Okay"
by ikslawoK
He does have several of them though.
"Wow....Okay...Sure but..."
I suggest that George Will
by RandomGuy
I suggest that George Will get his head examined.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
George Will is usually
by CheyennePress
George Will is usually pretty spot-on. Especially when you start talking economic matters.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
What's wrong with free-trade??
by cordpt
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand George Will advocates proteccionism as a good economic policy, a conservative principle? The federal government shall protect the profits of the incubents in order to save lifes? Free-trade is a bad thing?
What's wrong with lifting the statutory ban on reimportation? Don't conservatives favor free-market solutions anymore?
I'm beggining to understand why some conservatives dismiss McCain's economic standings...
George Will is way past his prime.
by matpruitt
This is the same guy that called Reagan a communist sympathizer after his meetings with Gorbachev. Big whoop.
"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
Was he in his prime then?
by LibertarianHawk
I'm not familiar with GFW calling Reagan a communist sympathizer. To this day, Jimmy Carter blames his 1980 election loss to Reagan on George Will -- something to do with a debate prep manual that made its way into the Reagan campaign's hands or some such thing.
Will was among Reagan's biggest fans -- so it would surprise me to learn that he actually called him a "communist sympathizer".
But, anyway, I've long considered George Will one of the most insightful and articulate advocates of conservatism in media. I don't necessarily agree with him about McCain -- but who ever said we all have to agree with each other on everything?
One of his biggest fans?
by matpruitt
No not really... Will was very critical of Reagan's diplomatic approach with Gorbachev.
"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
So is McCain... nt
by mbecker908
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
But still winning primaries.
by matpruitt
"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
Wake me up...
by mikefisk
...when he wins a closed primary, or gets a majority of the vote in one.
Otherwise, they're largely irrelevant.
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
well ...
by absentee
You mean they're not indicative. They certainly are not irrelevant. The assigned delegates matter. The publicity, the poll bumps, the message distribution, the increases in campaign contributions ... these things are not irrelevant at all.
absentee
On the Prescription Drug Importation
by cordpt
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp012605.html
«A statutory reimportation ban of the kind now in place, however, is inconsistent with market principles because (a), absent no-resale contracts, such a ban interferes with free trade, and (b), with no-resale contracts in place, a ban restricts the wrong party—the American buyer, who is no party to the contract.»
George Will should change his name
by hunter
I cannot write what I think of his idea at this venue without getting banned.
Will should change his name into "Won't". As in, 'won't win', or 'won't get points', or 'won't face reality' or 'won't be honest'.
This sort of exclusivity really ticks me off. It is gratuitous, it is disengenuous, it is self-destructive. It is typical cry-baby spoiled punditocracy pap. Our party is like any other - work in progress. For some pretentious dinsaur like 'Won't' to pontificate his spew about *elected* members of the party - you know, the people who have to actually go and get votes and then move policy- really annoys me. 'Won't' gets paid to bloviate and sound smart. People who run and win campaigns ahve to actually do something. I wish "Won't" would do something for once and shutup.
I don't like McCain.
I will not vote for him in the primary. But if the choice is the Clintons or the empty suit or McCain, I know I will vote for someone who is at least a patriot - McCain.
Your standard would exclude Red State too, you know
by Neil Stevens
Your argument that only those who campaign or run campaigns should comment is a lot like chickenhawking, only for campaigning. You might be careful.
By the time this is over, Neil
by ikslawoK
By the time this is over, Neil, the Republican Party is going to have to hold a tag sale for all of its gored oxen in order to raise money for the next campaign.
Reading Comprehension 101
by Tbone
He didn't say anything like what you wrote. Just the opposite. Re-read it. If you still need help, let me know.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Not at all
by hunter
1 - redstate does get involved with campaigning.
2 - please note that I am ticked off about this purity pogrom.
I don't know why it'a a "purity pogrom"
by ikslawoK
When it's just a simple statement of the record. I mean, it couldn't be clearer than McCain's statements, which are objective facts.
It is a pogrom
by hunter
because "won't" is trying to chase people out of the party.
Finally
by ikslawoK
You can call it a "Purity Pogrom" but the other objective fact is that a great many Democrats were very enthusiastic about McCain running with Kerry.
It rose to the level of a Washington Post editorial by David Ignatius saying that the "Country Needed Him" to join the Kerry ticket, back in May of 2004:
In normal times, people would accept McCain's response to joining Kerry: "I have totally ruled it out." But these aren't normal times, and McCain's response is unworthy. Simply put, the country needs him. The logic of a Kerry-McCain ticket isn't to win an election but to provide leadership for a divided country at war.
It made the Editorial Pages of the WaPo because it was a serious matter, that McCain was seriously considering while denying he was seriously considering it. If the numbers had gone a little differently and Kerry hadn't been such a loser, he might very well have done it.
The only reason I think McCain didn't join Kerry was because he didn't think Kerry was going to win because Kerry was such a bonehead of a candidate. That's it, though. Otherwise he would have.
Glad to hear you have obtained mind reading abilities.
by PopulistConservative
"The only reason I think McCain didn't join Kerry was because he didn't think Kerry was going to win because Kerry was such a bonehead of a candidate. That's it, though. Otherwise he would have."
Well, you'll have to ask John McCain
by ikslawoK
And he will tell you that he never seriously considered it even though I know -- not based on mind reading, but on actual conversations with real liberals at the time -- that they were very interested in the prospect of a switcheroo mixed ticket and they were interested because they were hearing things from people close to McCain that he was receptive.
Now you can chalk all that up to rumor and innuendo but frankly, it was a pretty strong rumor and a lot of people thought it was going to happen at the time. Take that for what it's worth. I don't trust the guy.
Democrats were very
by RandomGuy
Democrats were very enthusiastic about McCain running with Kerry.
OF COURSE THEY WERE ENTHUSIASTIC YOU IDIOT!!! THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD CAUSE THEM TO WIN!!!
That doesn't mean they actually liked the guy.
Duh.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
McCain did not join Kerry
by hunter
Because McCain is a loyal Republican.
George Will is right
by ikslawoK
McCain is wrong, end of story. I won't debate it. People who don't like it can just throw the Evil Eye of Cyberspace at me.
Who is George Will to say such a thing
by Aurelian
I'm not really going to defend McCain, as I think there is high probability that he'd implode in the general election once his buddies in the media turn on him, and I think he is an absolute disaster on immigration who has learned nothing and who would sign Ted Kennedy's bill in a second if given the chance, and I don't believe he'd nominate and fight for conservative judges.
But George Will is not someone to pass judgement on someone's conservative credentials. Didn't he once say the Second Amendment should be repealed? And wasn't he one of those going around making the absurd 'it would take a line of buses lined up from...to deport all the illegals' to advance the amnesty agenda?
It takes one to know one?
by No King but God
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
The Democratic Party...
by TheShovelJockey
...would be only too happy to have McCain. However, I think that he would have as much trouble getting the nomination as he had with the Republicans Party in 2000 (and may yet have again this year). In trying to be everything to everybody, he would be guaranteed to fire up the base of either party against him.
Of course, he would be nearly unbeatable in the general election, and probably the only hope the Republicans Party has of beating Clinton or Obama in November.
... on the importation of prescription drugs?
Since when an economic-protectionist is entitled to give lessons on conservatism?
George Will lost me a long time ago.
by rhino53
so I don't care what he thinks about anything.
I probably haven't read Will in 10 years (nt)
by Neil Stevens
Why not?
by jimmuy8
Why shouldn't McCain become a Democrat? He's got a long list of legislative and political victories that most Democrats would be happy to run on.
Oh, sure, he talks a lot of conservative positions but all he has to say to his new party is: "That was just talk to keep those AZ rubes voting for me and those fools in the RNC sending me re-election money but, when it came time for votes I stood with Kennedy and Feingold. I stopped them from packing the judiciary with right-wing, extremist judges. I stood firm against reckless tax cuts for the rich. You know that--that's the straight talk, my friends"
If Will were consistent
by Ashbrook
he would escort Rudy back into the Democratic Party.
At least McCain is pro-life and a patriot.
Big deal
by Finrod
Harry Reid claims to be pro-life and a patriot too.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
this is silly
by dingo
This whole thing is getting out of hand and just silly.
McCain is no Democrat. Even those of you who dislike him do so, not because his record is that of a normal Democrat - overall it is not even close - but either because 1) he picks fights for no reason with or otherwise insults other Republicans, and 2) on certain issues - campaign finance reform, tax cuts, immigration, waterboarding - he follows the (flawed) Democrat line. I object to his positions on these issues, but I recognize that he is far from a Democrat.
There is a potential danger in labeling someone something said person is clearly not. For example, many Democrats trot out their election eve "Republican candidate X is a racist" to guarantee a huge black turn out every election. However, by calling all Republicans racists, the Democrats allow real racists, like say, David Duke, to pretend that he is just another Republican, as opposed to being a real racist. They also prevent real debates from erupting regarding such things as affirmative action.
Let's avoid making that kind of mistake, people.
PS: Disclaimer - I am using the David Duke example as a pure example. I am not calling anyone a racist or otherwise comparing them to racists.
PS: McCain is not my candidate of choice. I would have prefered Fred. And Rudy is second.
Exactly
by hunter
What happened to the big tent?
Now we have Willa nd others seeking to collapse it.
Pharmaceuticals = bad guys; sums up McCain
by E Pluribus Unum
Spiral, this is a devastating piece. AGAIN I am compelled to recommend a piece, knowing that this will supplant my peice at the #1 spot. Dang you!
When I heard him say that in the debate my jaw hit the floor. Not that he would believe that -- the same guy who ....well, we've been through all that. No surprise that he feels that way.
But the fact that he would SAY that outloud in a Republican debate. Whether it was just an unguarded moment or maybe he's PROUD of that viewpoint -- his HEART is not free speech, free market, low regulation. His heart is mission-obsessed gangsterism.
Devastating peek at the man's heart.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
devastating?
by absentee
Your standards are dropping my friend.
absentee
Standards? When did I get standards?
by E Pluribus Unum
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
So, you do agree with Will on that?
by cordpt
You don't believe in free-market when it comes to pharmaceutical companies?
I agree with Will - and against McCain
by E Pluribus Unum
From the way you pose that, I'm not sure what you are asking.
But McCain things that big pharmaceutical is "the bad guys" (that's the exact thing he was saying. I (E Pluribus Unum) believe that big pharmaceutical has been over-regulated and over-lawsuited (don't get me started on the TLA) almost out of existence, and need to be left alone by the bureaucracies and the ambulance-chasers.
I am for more -- much more -- free market, in which I'm certain George Will agrees with me, and clearly McCain does not.
So does this answer what you are asking?
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
E Pluribus
by absentee
I addressed this very point in my own George Will blog entry. I despise sounding like a self-promoter, but there it is.
absentee
you shameless self-promoter, you
by E Pluribus Unum
And by the way, I de-capitalized that first letter in honor of your name. I expect neither gratitude nor acknowledgment for that. It is, however, a service I provide. i do it for haystack too (notice how I de-capitalized this sentence in his honor).
Now, on to substance. I think your diary was on target, insofar as it addresses George Will. Not so much where you praise McCain, but then you'd think less of me if I felt otherwise. I'm pretty severely disinclined (hey, YOU used some fancy terms, such as ad hominem) to give any credence to the 'McCain as Kerry's running mate' story. Even though you know how I feel about our favorite flyboy, I never bought that one.
I don't care to defend Will point by point. I think it was a bit over the top. My specific thing was not actually what Will said - I saw the debate where McCain said "Ugh - big pharma is bad", and my response was in reference to my own thoughts about that. Will scores a point that I call "devastating".
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
All fair commentary
by absentee
For my part, I cannot readily express to you the breathtaking gratitude that overcomes me whenever my name is used at all. That you choose to apply the lower-case honorific is above and beyond the call.
However, to my undying shame and eternal humiliation, I have failed to extend the courtesy to haystack. As Oscar Wilde wrote, "In this world there are only two tragedies." This failure is one of them.
I see what you are saying about the big pharma comment. Surely not a well-planned comment on the Senator's part. I would suggest, though, that if you and I were aware of a group of companies acting unscrupulously under the auspices of government protection, it is possible we may also refer to them as bad guys. Not that this is the current situation; Hypothetically.
absentee
hypothetically, yes
by E Pluribus Unum
And it so happens, we have a case. The New England Patriots are just such a group, acting unscrupulously under the auspices of government protection.
I hope John McCain CRUSHES them, or at least wedgies them to the point where they'd rather be waterboarded.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
ah common ground
by absentee
I don't care who crushes them, as long as it is swift, soon, and messy.
absentee
on shamelessness and barnum-ery
by absentee
Judging by the comments in this blog entry I missed the appropriate iron-striking time with my response. (Now that was just brazen.)
I neglected to mention two other points regarding Will's annointing of McCain the Democrat.
1) Second amendment. He votes for protecting our rights, he votes against restricting them, including voting against so-called assault weapos bans. Not exactly Hillary's platform there.
2) Endorsements. I find it hard to imagine Tom Coburn and Sam Brownback endorsing John Kerry, if you see what I mean.
Feel free to reply here regarding those two points. ;)
absentee
Or my first comment on this:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/spiral/2008/jan/21/george_will_suggests_th...
Will is advocating trade barriers, protectionist.
Oh, you mean the larger George Will point of view?
by E Pluribus Unum
Nah, I'm not really on board with him on that trade stuff. However, I MIGHT agree with him on China -- I don't know what he believes, I know only what I believe. I am the resident RedState China-hater (only PRC -- not the people, not the food, and CERTAINLY not Jackie Chan).
But I believe China poses a clear and emerging near-term threat in the East, and a medium-term threat to challenge America world-wide -- militarily. And I don't advocate doing anything that helps their economy, even if it helps our economy.
So, other than inre China, I'm free trade 100%.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
E Pluribus Unum, thanks
by Spiral
Next time I'll make my blog a bit less effective so it doesn't displace yours.
But in all reality, George Will did most of the heavy lifting on this.
No, you keep right on it, Spiral
by E Pluribus Unum
We are of common cause here, and tag-team diaries can be a great thing.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
YouTube of McCain on Pharma during MI Town Hall
by Bioinformaticus Maximus
I quizzed him about it in Warren, MI last week. Tort reform (which he supports) should work wonders for vaccine research. Vaccines have low profit margins and high liability because they are only used once and if they harm one person in 1,000,000 they must be taken off the market even if they save the lives of 10,000 of those 1,000,000 people that would have otherwise died. While other pharmaceutical products are being developed at an ever-increasing rate, vaccine research has entered its own "dark ages".
McCain on YouTube (click camera link on post).
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.
-Attributed to Yogi Berra
That's quite a handle you got there
by E Pluribus Unum
Bioinformaticus Maximus = maximum life knowledge?
So on the one hand McCain things big pharma is "the bad guys", and on the other hand, he supports tort reform? Interesting. I'd like to see exactly what he has in mind before I support it. He's got notions that I don't follow very well.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
has now offically started. McCain has 82% lifetime record from the ACU, nearly 90% in it comes to pro-life issues, and by the way is one of the most strident defenders of the GWOT, yet because he strays off the ranch a few times he is a Democrat.
McCain '08