Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
I'm off the fence and for McCain
By Charles Bird Posted in 2008 — Comments (162) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This will be my only front-page post in support of a Republican candidate for the nomination. John McCain has little to no chance of getting nominated, but I'm supporting him anyway. My reasons are backing him are a combination of things, having to do with my agreement with him on key issues and for what I see as shortcomings in the other candidates. The slate of candidates is imperfect, so my rationale was to go with the least imperfect one. My three main criteria for picking a president in this election cycle are national security, the economy, and integrity. As I see it, McCain is the most solid of the candidates in those categories, so let me go through them.
More below the fold...
National security. McCain has been stronger than the other candidates on this issue, in my opinion. I believe he is the most right on Iraq and national security. He rightfully criticized Bush and Rumsfeld for undermanning the war effort in Iraq and for our failing strategy, going against most of the other Republican Senators in particular and Republicans in general. Now that we are seeing clearer signs of success via more troops and a more workable strategy, we should give McCain credit for speaking out. We should also recognize that it was Bush who came around to McCain, not the other way around.
I think McCain is also right on the matter of coercive interrogations. Waterboarding, to name one technique, is illegal and it is torture. I'm confident that these methods work, but they're morally wrong and we shouldn't be using them unless there is a ticking time-bomb situation. Less importantly, I don't know how much intelligence we've garnered through such coercion, but I would have a hard time believing that the intelligence benefits received have exceeded the political costs paid, both domestically and internationally. It's a problem. My take is that we can win this War Against Militant Islamism without lowering our standards.
McCain was prisoner of war in Vietnam, and he was tortured, so his opinion about the practice carries a lot of weight with me. What's more, to this day he feels the effects that his captors levied on him. From Vanity Fair:
Like his friend Bob Dole, he tries to minimize his disabilities, but they are serious. He suffered severe injuries when his plane was shot down over North Vietnam 40 years ago; his right knee was broken when his seat was ejected from the cockpit, and both arms were broken in the crash. These injuries were compounded by the profound abuse he endured during five and a half years in captivity.
McCain seldom talks about the details of his torture by the North Vietnamese, but he has written about them in clinical depth. Despite the injuries he had already suffered, upon capture he was promptly bayoneted in the ankle and then beaten senseless. The North Vietnamese never set either of his broken arms. The only treatment of his broken knee involved cutting all the ligaments and cartilage, so that he never had more than 5 to 10 percent flexion during the entire time he was in prison. In 1968 he was offered early release, and when he refused, because others had been there longer, his captors went at him again; he suffered cracked ribs, teeth broken off at the gum line, and torture with ropes that lashed his arms behind his back and that were progressively tightened all through the night. Ultimately he taped a coerced confession.
McCain's right knee still has limited flexibility. Most of the time this is not too noticeable, but McCain mounts the steps onto planes with a herky-jerky gait. A climb up dozens of steps at the New Hampshire International Speedway, in Loudon, leaves him badly winded and sweating profusely. Because his broken arms were allowed to heal without ever being properly set, to this day McCain cannot raise his arms above his shoulders. He cannot attend to his own hair. An aide is often nearby with a comb and small can of hair spray.
McCain has difficulty putting on his suit jacket unassisted. Once, as we prepared to get out of a cramped airplane cabin in Burlington, Vermont, where McCain would be greeted by the governor, I turned my back for a moment, only to find him struggling. He could sense that his collar was all bunched up, and asked me matter-of-factly to help him straighten it out. I felt the pang that those around McCain feel whenever they realize the extent of his injuries. "You comb someone's hair once," his 2000 communications director, Dan Schnur, says, "and you never forget it."
Personally, I don't we should ever forget the sacrifices he made for his country and the injuries he sustained in defending it. When a man has been in such circumstances and vehemently rejects those methods used against him, I think we should listen.
The economy. McCain has a solid record on fiscal restraint and freer trade, both of which are conservative positions. Mike Huckabee's tepid support of free trade agreements is why I can't support him, for example. [Update: McCain's positions on taxes here. He opposed the Bush tax cuts for budgetary reasons, but he supports making them permanent because letting them lapse would be tantamount to a tax hike. There's plenty more information in the link.]
Integrity. McCain speaks his mind, and oft times it gets him in trouble. I strongly disapprove of McCain-Feingold, especially the gag order in the 60-day period prior to election day, but I think his intentions were in the right place. I wouldn't judge too harshly against McCain about the bill. After all, George W. Bush signed the damned legislation into law. McCain is conservative on social issues, but not boisterously so.
Why not the other candidates? Giuliani has public integrity, but I'm troubled by his personal integrity. I'd rather not have a president on his third marriage and I'd rather not have a president who personally donated money to Planned Parenthood. He made soothing noises about appointing conservative judges, but Giuliani is too left-leaning for my taste.
For Romney, I think he's weaker than McCain on national security. As for Fred Thompson, he's probably my number two choice. But last July, Thompson was bombarded with negative news stories and he barely answered any of the charges. For a media-familiar character, Thompson has not handled media situations well. Thompson has similar positions as McCain on national security, but McCain gets the nod because he has more experience.
Immigration. McCain turned off a good number of conservatives by his support of the immigration bill last summer (I was mildly in favor of it). McCain has said that he has learned his lesson and that he would support "enforcement first" provisions. I take him at his word, just as I take Giuliani at his word that he would appoint judges in mold of Roberts and Alito.
Gang of 14. Many conservatives were irked about the Gang of 14 (and still are), but I'm telling you, liberals hate it even more. The dKos crowd was neutralized by this agreement, and we have two new conservative judges on the bench today. The results speak for themselves.
McCain's drawbacks. If elected, he would be 73 on inauguration day. But hey, 73 is the new 63.
McCain's temper and temperament have been issues. In 2000, I sided with Bush because I thought he had a better temperament for the job than McCain. In retrospect, I think I overemphasized that attribute. Back then, I voted for Bush over McCain because Bush came across as the more conservative candidate. Boy, was I wrong. In the last seven years, the person who has clearly made more conservative choices was McCain, not Bush.
Anyway, I've been angry and irritated with McCain's various antics over the years, but I gave him a second look and found his positions on the important stuff more than acceptable. I think all other conservatives should take that second look as well.
« The Netroots Are Angry — Comments (61) | Say It Ain't So Hillary, Say It Ain't SO!!! — Comments (4) »
I'm off the fence and for McCain 162 Comments (0 topical, 162 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I'm on the fence and for McCain
by AzaMatteroFact
Charles,
Welcome aboard the Straight Talk Express! I understand exactly how you feel (though couldn't have put it so succinctly). I am a converted Romney supporter. McCain kept talkin' and I kept listening.
My "hot button" issues are National Security and pork-barrell spending. There simply is not a better candidate on those two issues in my opinion, than John McCain. He was right to support the war while critizing the strategy. He supported the surge when it was politically unpopular to do so and it is working. He has been tireless in his efforts to fight earmarks and pork-barrell spending and their corrupting influence.
McCain-Kennedy? Like you, I mildly supported it. I saw it as a best possible compromise. We are never going to deport 20 million illegals.
McCain-Feingold? I think the only person arguing that there is too LITTLE money in politics is the campaign finance chair for McCain2008.
You say McCain has little or no chance of getting nominated yet you support him. Sounds like you are off the fence and standing on principle. hmmm...sounds familiar.
Again Charles, welcome aboard.
(Full disclosure. I not only support McCain, I donate to and volunteer on his campaign.)
Brad Marston
Visit the best political blog that nobody reads at www.azamatterofact.com
of course I meant OFF not ON...
by AzaMatteroFact
I just proved I couldn't have said it as well.
Brad Marston
Visit the best political blog that nobody reads at www.azamatterofact.com
Military Record
by Downtownla
I definitely think that McCain should highlight his military record more. If I'm not mistaken, he is the only major candidate who has military experience.
ended in '81. He's been in Congress for 20 years - his actions in Congress speak more to his current ideals and values. He would do much better if he put his ego aside and didn't try to bull-run over his opponents on every issue. Admitting mistakes, such as campaign finance reform and the Kennedy-McCain immigration amnesty, would help too.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
hold the phone
by bellpe
McCain has acknowledged that McCain-Feingold hasn't worked as intended. We hear this objection a lot among people who cite it as a "cardinal sin" against McCain. In reality, we've seen what money does in politics -- it corrupts, and corrupts absolutely.
On immigration, in the past two weeks, McCain has come out publicly and said he now supports "securing the borders first" before any other reforms.
I think it'd do people who "disagree" with McCain on these issues to catch up with the times.
Blogging at Blogs4McCain.com
I don't have time to keep up with
by Old Crow
all his policy changes - he's been in DC too long and has become a typical inside-the-beltway guy. I respect him, but I could never vote for him.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Two words:
by cwilson
"Cheap date".
McCain now says "I'll build the **** fence if they want it". It's an attitude of grumbling and grudging acceptance of (temporary) political accommodation -- he is no convert. He has not "seen the light".
Thus, this issue demonstates something about McCain's integrity: he will do (or claim/pretend to do, much much later) what he believes is wrong -- building a fence -- in order to convince you to give him your vote, now.
And that's not my definition of integrity. Integrity is "I'm going to stand for what I believe is right, no matter the cost to my personal political aspirations" OR "I was wrong and I admit it, and now I will try to do better". McCain's "conversion" is neither of those two.
Sorry. No sale.
Depends which "light" you mean
by Adam C
Sen. McCain has said clearly he still wants a comprehensive solution but that he knows the country doesn't trust the government and wants to see the border secure before dealing with the existing illegal immigrant community.
He always wanted to secure the border AND deal with the people already here through a form of earned legalization.
So he "saw the light" that most people wanted to secure the border first and then deal with the other problems.
What "light" are you referring to? If you think the country is actually anti-immigration, then you're in the minority.
I think McCain might be able to pull a Nixon and be the only major R who has the credibility to really secure the border. His pro-immigration creds are in place so that no one will confuse him for the anti-Mexican or anti-immigrant Tancredo wing of the party. But he wants to get a comprehensive solution. If he knows that the only way to do that is to restore voters belief in the government's ability to control the border, he would do it. Then a year later, he'd come back and say "I secured the border, now let's get to that earned legalization."
It's not a flip flop, he wants the same goal. He now understands that the disgust and distrust of government is deeper than any time in recent history. "Trust me" doesn't go very far. And so he is putting one part of his immigration platform ahead of the other: first, secure the borders, then get earned legalization.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
well as some sober statements over the past year or so, shows that he did not favor a fence, without which one cannot secure the border.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
That's one opinion
by Adam C
I'm ambivalent about a fence, but I definitely don't think it is the only way to secure the border. I think an easier, quicker legal process would help a lot. And more manpower is one key. Also, a renewed effort to enforce employer sanctions could lead to lower demand for illegal immigration. Finally, a willingness by the DoJ to prosecute all people caught trying to cross illegally or through smuggling could have a big effect.
A fence is one method, not the only one. But I would say it is fair game to ask Sen. McCain (and the others) which specific methods they would use to secure the border.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
fence. Fort Knox: fence. China: wall Israel: fence
My house: fence
A fence will deter most from even trying. They won't travel long distances hoping a guard is away long enough to pole vault.
manpower and virtual fences simply invite confrontations
Abd since when is it not fair? to ask a candidate how he will carry out a policy? Plus there is a law on the books demanding a fence be built.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Sigh.
by cwilson
No, I'm not anti-legal-immigrant; nor do I think much of the rest of the country is. It's this:
If he knows that the only way to do that is to restore voters belief in the government's ability to control the border, he would do it. Then a year later, he'd come back and say "I secured the border, now let's get to that earned legalization."
If you or McCain thinks that: (1) you can actually begin to DO something to effectively secure the border, and (2) have it completed, with time to (3) generate accurate, truthful statitistics that show that you HAVE secured the border, all in one year -- or even a single presidential term -- then you/he haven't thought very hard about the problem.
Of course, it's much easier and faster to put up a few potemkin miles of fence, generate a few misleading statistics, or delegate decision-making authority to state governors with a vested political interest in reporting "Yep, we're good!".
THAT, you could do in a year.
And so he is putting one part of his immigration platform ahead of the other: first, secure the borders, then get earned legalization.
And that's what I mean about a "cheap date". If you honestly believe that any of the Open Borders Faction -- of which McCain is a founding member -- EVER wanted to secure the borders in any real way, I've got some valuable waterfront property in South Florida to sell you. And if you believe McCain's grudging acceptance of current political necessity will carry thru past 21 Jan 2009, then I'll throw in a well-constructed famous bridge...
a potemkin fence is better than none - nt
by gamecock
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You can say that again
by Neil Stevens
Just the partial fencing of Operation Gatekeeper was a smash success. Just fence the hot spots, forcing the illegals down unsafe routes, and you'll drive the numbers down. That then gives us breathing room to fill in the gaps.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Not if you
by cwilson
declare victory and go home before filling in those gaps.
I agree with most of what
by RandomGuy
I agree with most of what you've said, you miss only one thing:
McCain has a bad habit of alienating people he needs on his side, and making friends who will never be with him when he needs them anyway. I don't think this is fair necessarily, like you, I agreed with the Gang of 14 deal and I lean in your direction on the waterboarding issue, for example, but it would be a very real problem as President.
It's less of a problem when he's a Senator, but when you are the head honcho that has to build support, I think it would be a major problem. It's not his stances, if you are really a 'perfect conservative' it basically means you either aren't actually responsible for anything or have blurred your position on the issues. It's how he handles his difficult stances. He gets it backwards.
Basically, it comes down to this: Giuliani has more troublesome issues then McCain from any objective standard. Yet, when you see Giuliani talk, you don't feel that way. When he disagrees, you still get the sense that he understands you, respects you, and is on your side overall. It's the exact opposite of McCain. When McCain disagrees, you get the sense that he's looking down his nose at you.
I don't think this is necessarily fair. I think part of it is the fact that a lot of conservatives, radio talk show types especially, have been terribly unfair to McCain, and his own reactions to such unfairness has been less then helpful. But I do think it's reality, and I don't know if he can bridge that gap. I'd be afraid he'd be very ineffective as an executive whenever he didn't have power to do something unilaterally. He just doesn't know what fights to pick and which not to.
Giuliani on the other hand, is not only use to being an executive, but he's made his entire career based on knowing what fights to pick. Its because he knew what fights to pick that he was as successful of a US Attorney as he was, it's because he knew what fights to pick that he was able to get elected Mayor of New York.
I love McCain as a Senator, and I think he'd be a wonderful Secretary of Defense, but something comes to light that convinces me he's learned how to pick fights in a smarter way, I'll be supporting Giuliani.
Jindal/Palin '16
great analysis - nt
by gamecock
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
This is why McCain is only my #2
by streetwise
I admire him so much, but have very serious reservations about his ability to lead a party- when to give, when to take and when to avoid being taken.
I don't think McCain will make it too far. Glad to see that Thompson is currently your fall back.
Oz
Read my most recent story, "Immigration may be Hillary's undoing" on First Cut Politics
5 - Well said, Charles
by von
Well said, Charles.
Charles and I were part of the same group blog for some time. Those familiar with my public posting history there and here will note that I'm to the left of Charles on most social issues. But I supported McCain in '00, and I am supporting him again -- for exactly the same reasons as Charles states.*
Those who are looking for a conservative who are also concerned about electability may with to take note.
von
*Why am I not supporting Giuliani? Being the mayor of New York during 9-11 -- even the brilliant & heroic mayor of New York during 9-11 -- is not the same as having foreign policy experice. Frankly, Giuliani's a foreign policy lightweight. That's going to become immediately apparent once the halo wears off. (Read his piece in the prior Foreign Affairs for a preview: It's really stupid. He may make it through the primary based on reputation, but the substance is going to be tested in the general. Either Hillary or Obama could come out looking better.)
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
"Read his piece in the prior
by Balfour Conservative
"Read his piece in the prior Foreign Affairs for a preview: It's really stupid."
As compared to any other essays they have published? These are speeches filled with platitudes on how the candidate would like to make the world work once they become president. I would tell everyone to disregard those puff pieces of wishful thinking and read the other essays in the quarterly magazine. If you want to know how a Giuliani foreign policy would look, go no further than the people he has advising him.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/42460
Giuliani's experience in international affairs pales next to John McCain's, and if he is elected, he will likely rely on those in his inner circle the way Bush does in foreign policy.
By irking the rest of the party and catering to the media.
How does this qualify him ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
McCain may be many things, but none can say he isn't experienced
by Balfour Conservative
Giuliani possesses many strengths, but when matched against McCain, foriegn policy is not one of them. They agree on almost everything, and the Senator from Arizona espouses the nature and necessity of the Iraq War with unmatched rhetorical ability. His military background adds gravitas to his words.
Color me ignorant
by Joliphant
What is his foreign policy experience that trumps the mayors or any other candidate ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
While not possessing the
by Alyosha
While not possessing the foreign policy experience of a Secretary of State, Senators have to develop a certain level of expertise on foreign policy issues because they need to vote on treaties, get regular briefings on foreign policy issues (including some access to more classified information), vote on foreign policy issues like granting war powers, etc. McCain also has the benefit of actually having served in a war, which strikes me as important foreign policy experience.
"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."
So running the City Housing the UN counts as what ?
by Joliphant
Dealing with out of control diplomats that are in a giant playground with immunity from prosecution counts as what ?
Dealing with one of the busiest trading ports in the world and several of the major financial markets is chop liver ?
I won't discount McCains war experience, in that it has given him an up close and personal experience about what a mess a lousy foreign policy can create. Its hardly experience crafting policy any more than being a passenger in a car accident counts as drivers ed.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'm not suggesting Rudy has
by Alyosha
I'm not suggesting Rudy has no foreign policy experience, but I think grappling with the issues Senators deal with are more instructive on foreign policy than the issues that governors and mayors deal with.
That said, I think a mayor/governor's executive experience probably at least balances out their relative lack of foreign policy experience.
"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."
Rudy as Director of Homeland Security? Sure. He handled post 9/11 NYC with dedication and resolve. But what experience does he have as a military commander? None.
We don't have time for "on the job training" when it comes to Islamic extremism, continuing wars in the Afghanistan and Iraq, and threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea.
Furthermore, we've got serious strategic decisions to make with competitors like China and Russia.
In all of this, we need a leader who understands how to build a stronger and more capable military. We need a leader who understands what it will take to deter challenges to our national security -- and take action to protect America without piddle-farting around to "consult the lawyers". That leader, my friends, is John McCain.
Blogging at Blogs4McCain.com
Uhmm do you really want to go there ?
by Joliphant
The logical conclusion is that we should only elect a general.
I'll say it again. While I respect and give thanks McCain did what he did.
His experience during that war is the equivalent of being a passenger during an accident. Its not drivers ed or vocational training.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
McCain, and Rudy's weakness
by von
His experience during that war is the equivalent of being a passenger during an accident. Its not drivers ed or vocational training.
What about McCain's experiences after the war? The man did continue to serve (and lead) until '82 (IIRC).
On a side note --
One of the most devasting political attacks you can make is to take a candidate's perceived strength, and turn it into a weakness. That's what happened to Kerry with his war experience: the Democrats chose him thinking hist war experience was a plus. It turned out that Kerry's experience wasn't a plus -- indeed, it may have been a slight weakness. Rudy's foreign policy experience (his perceived strongest selling point) is just as vulnerable. Proceed at your own risk.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
You know I pointed out upthread
by Joliphant
If thats your criteria elect a general. Its not like we don't have a competent crop to select from.
Rudy's foreign policy experience is his perceived strong point ? If that isn't setting a frame I don't know what is. Rudy's strong points are his post 9/11 leadership, the fact he is willing to fight back and fight back hard for his side, and excellent job he did in dealing with menaces in NYC that bear a resemblance to the terrorists. Foreign policy is about 5th or less on the list.
I could certainly see the press picking one of his weaker attributes and trying to make it seem like thats his chief selling point. It would hardly work in a forum such as this.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Puff pieces
by von
As compared to any other essays they have published? These are speeches filled with platitudes on how the candidate would like to make the world work once they become president.
I agree that FA publishes mostly puff pieces. But you can write a puff that reveals you as a serious foreign policy lightweight.
By comparison, Clinton and McCain's pieces are in the current FA. Both are mostly filled with platitudes, but both make reasonable policy proposals that display some knowledge of foreign policy. Giuliani's didn't.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
That would net 320+ electoral votes, IMHO.
---
The truth is, the more you tax profits, the more you undermine the American work ethic and the incentive structure that goes along with it. In fact, you demoralize the very system that has made this country great.
I don't think it would work.
by RandomGuy
I don't think it would work. They both appeal to independents, true, but they both appeal to the same independents. They both have the same base. I'm not sure doubling up would move the chains any.
Either Giuliani or McCain has to pick someone who is more trusted by social conservatives. Brownback, Huckabee, Santorum, DeMint, Coburn, etc.
Jindal/Palin '16
it's a little early...
by bellpe
But I like McCain/Thompson or McCain/Huckabee!
Blogging at Blogs4McCain.com
Not a good record on the economy. His spending focus is on pennywise irrelevancies, not entitlements.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
No, no, no!
by RandomGuy
That is absolutely false.
McCain HAS opposed tax cuts from time to time, that is absolutely true. But it is NOT true that he has favored hiking taxes. I'm pretty sure he hasn't EVER voted for a tax increase of any sort, and he favors making the tax cuts permenent.
Jindal/Palin '16
news conferences with his dem friends opposing tax cuts and opposing renewing same, i.e. a tax hike.
Yes, twice he has been taught lessons about his MSM sucking up for air time. That's once too many for me. Can't be trusted.
Also, Random Guy with 2 too mnay nos in the subject line, did you know that McCain is against the right of the "rich" to pass on their wealth to their children or their own choice?
he does
Favors a HUGE death tax!
Look it up if you care. I'm not doing it over a second tier candidate.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You are wrong about
by RandomGuy
You are wrong about extending the cuts, he's said he's for that so many times I can't count. I'm not going to go look for an old news article, but I 100% assure you they are out there.
I don't know if you are right about the death tax, I think you are wrong on that as well, but that's always been a weird issue in conservative history. One of the most famous economic libertarians, John Stewart Mill, was for 100% death tax. I don't agree, but I can understand the logic that says people should make it on their own. The entire logic behind it is the idea of the rugged individual, which is a very conservative concept.
Jindal/Palin '16
-ng to his earlier stance on same and his stance in the 2000 campaign and numerous other times he has mouthed the dem party line that tax rate hikes would help narrow the deficit
ignoring the economic history of the United States in the 60's 80s and 90s.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
INDISPENSABLE right to have freedom is of privare property rights.
Why work and accumulate wealth otherwise? esp if you can't pass it on!
http://www.hinzsightreport.com/devinelaw/mike-051707.html
Imposing smoking bans in restaurants is power play by non-smokers
MIKE DEVINE
Special to the Observer
"It's not about personal freedoms. It's not about businesses' property rights. This is a health issue bill."
That was House Majority Leader Hugh Holliman's final plea for a statewide smoking ban bill that was voted down 55-61 by the North Carolina House this month.
Georgia is still the Peach State, Tennesseans still volunteer, and Winstons and Salems may still be smoked in privately owned businesses in Winston-Salem.
That a majority of Tar Heel legislators rejected the Davidson County Democrat's nanny-state proposal and upheld rights the framers of the Constitution deemed most indispensable to liberty should win approval from smokers and non-smokers alike.
For James Madison, Father of the Constitution, the legitimacy of government depended on its active protection of private property rights. John Adams declared, "Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist." The Bill of Rights' demand that government pay just compensation when it "takes" one's property fits these sentiments like a hand in a glove.
Air, liberty and workers
Supporters of Holliman's bill waxed profuse defending "rights" and "entitlements" found nowhere in the Constitution, but they were poised to chuck the most fundamental rights the Constitution meant to protect. No one is compelled to patronize private businesses that allow smoking. And no one has a right to have other people build restaurants for their pleasure in the first place, much less maintain air quality therein to others' liking.Holliman and other supporters of the smoking ban claimed the bill was about public health and "worker" rights.
Not so.
Concerned about health? How about mandatory masks for waiters where second-hand smoke wafts about? Not called for by Holliman. Coal miners wear masks. Waiters could, too.
The bill was not about health. It was about the rights of workers all right -- restricting those rights, not protecting them, as do-gooders claim.
Want to protect workers' most precious rights? Protect enjoyment of the fruit of their labor. Privately owned property is the fruit of much labor.
In large measure, our Constitution's property rights produced the miracle known as America. Wealth generated by the miracle in the hands of the most benevolent, free nation in history works for the liberation of millions from tyranny around the world and longer life-spans here and abroad. Miracle-generated resources have made possible the defeat of enemies anxious to reduce the life-span of smokers quicker than the snuffing out of a couple of cigarettes.
In no small measure, the increased life expectancy of Americans results from benefits produced by property-right-incentivized work habits.
The fact is that first-hand smokers today live longer than non-smokers of yesteryear thanks to advances in medicine and technology unimaginable apart from the liberty secured by rights to property.
Smoke alarmists
Property rights created the wealth that buys our freedom and increase our life span much more than second-hand smoke could reduce it -- if in fact second-hand smoke does reduce it.
Medical studies cited by ABC News reporter John Stossel cast serious doubt on the claims of second-hand smoke alarmists. Common sense called them into question long before that. It takes first-hand smoke a long time to kill the smokers it kills. We are supposed to fear greatly reduced life expectancy when the smoke is diluted thousandsfold?
If workers' health is not the target, what is?
Power.
This is a brazen power grab by the non-smoking majority. They prefer to eat in a smoke-free environment, so all restaurants must cater to their preference. Never mind that the free market continues to create smoke-free restaurants at an amazing clip without aid from legislators.
Do not misunderstand. Despite my skepticism of the dangers of second-hand smoke, my sympathies extend to Holliman, and all other who have lost loved ones to tobacco-induced cancer. I lost a grandfather (age 73) and my father (age 65), both life-long smokers, to lung cancer.
They chose to smoke, despite the warning labels, and died from it. That's no reason to restrict the freedom that ensured they lived as long as they did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To comment on this commentary online, go to www.charlotte.com/opinion, then click on this column.
Mike
DeVine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observer community columnist Mike DeVine is vice president of Intequity Inc., a Charlotte-based marketing firm, blogs as "Gamecock" at Race42008.com and is legal editor for The HinzSight Report.com. Write him at mikedevinelaw @yahoo.com or at The Observer
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
While he has been vocal on
by Alyosha
While he has been vocal on pork (which is important) he's also been pretty steadfastly in favor of good entitlement reform. He voted against the Medicare prescription drug bill because of concerns about the solvency of the program and is in favor of private accounts for social security.
For what it's worth the National Taxpayers Union has also ranked him pretty consistently as one of the best taxpayer advocates in the Senate (http://www.ntu.org/main/components/ratescongress/details_all_years.php3?...)
"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."
McCain is too swuirely for me
by 10ksnooker
He is excellent on the war, but then falls down on so many other issues -- Immigration, taxes, judicial nominees ....
Fred is a much better candidate, I am supporting him.
We need to reduce the field so the remaining can have real debates and discussions on real issues.
Again, I salute McCain on the war and his steadfast support of same. It is the sole issue that has kept him positive in my eyes.
Welcome aboard, Charles!
by bellpe
I have to second what my friend Brad has said: welcome aboard! Those of us in the blogger community supporting McCain do so for many of the reasons you outlined. McCain is stronger on national security, defense, and military affairs than any other candidate.
He is the most experienced candidate in the field to be a WARTIME candidate. Sen. McCain was for the surge in Iraq since the inception of the conflict. He endured the criticism of fellow Republicans who scorned his disapproval of the Rumsfeld approach (which, in hindsight, was clearly flawed). He's come around to supporting "securing the border first" and has admitted that McCain-Feingold didn't work as planned. On both issues, he's acknowledged that he's willing to listen to the American people -- and move forward.
When it comes to his personal life, he's an American hero -- and has a beautiful family. McCain's sons Jimmy and Jack are both serving, in the marines and navy (academy) respectively. His wife Cindy and daughter Meghan are both campaigning with him.
I'm confident that McCain is the best man for our party's nomination, and the most qualified and experienced to be our next president. As more people and pundits start realizing this, I think we'll see McCain make a huge comeback.
Viva McCain!
Blogging at Blogs4McCain.com
Not a chance. A McCain
by DaMav
Not a chance. A McCain candidacy gives the Democrats a pass on illegal immigration. McCain is wrong on the policy and wrong on the politics on what could be the most important issue in the election.
see this post for McCain's acknowledgment.
Blogging at Blogs4McCain.com
Oh please. After
by DaMav
Oh please. After unsuccessfully working with Ted Kennedy to try to ram amnesty through again(!) this June, he cratered in the polls and his fund raising dried up. Then he had a miraculous transformation...
Actions speak louder than words, and his actions have been clear. He didn't even vote against the DREAM Act a couple weeks ago, he ducked out 60 minutes before the vote.
His credibility on amnesty is the same as Hillary Clinton's on drivers licenses for illegal aliens. And that tosses away a huge advantage for Republicans in 2008.
interesting...
by bellpe
Did you read the link? McCain still wants to see immigration reform, including a guest worker program and other comprehensive solutions. He hasn't caved on anything -- except to acknowledge that SECURING THE BORDER must come first. Comparing McCain's stance on securing the borders to Hillary's position on drivers licenses is laughable.
Blogging at Blogs4McCain.com
Give it up. You are, as the
by RandomGuy
Give it up. You are, as the phrase goes, "singing to the pigs." i.e. doesn't do you any good, and it annoys the pigs.
Folks that chant "Amnesty" every time they open their mouth won't be satisfied until illegal border crossings are a capital offense, every illegal immigrant is deported, and legal immigration is basically restricted to people with PhD's who speak English better then they do.
Jindal/Palin '16
I was and am a very strong
by DaMav
I was and am a very strong Jindal supporter. You don't make much of an impression comparing people you don't know to pigs.
So in other words
by Adam C
Sen. McCain is now espousing the exact view that a super majority of Americans have espoused for a couple years. First, secure the border. Then, earned legalization with some form of fine/back taxes/back of line provisions.
Isn't "acknowledging that securing the border must come first" what most people were yelling from the top of their lungs for the past two years. Or do people really think that you have to be for mass deportation to be "tough on immigration?"
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Both McCain and Clinton
by DaMav
Both McCain and Clinton changed positions to align themselves politically on illegal immigration. In fact if anything Clinton stuck with an unpopular cause, McCain switched positions to the more popular one.
That takes a key point away from Republicans in the general election.
I was a major McCain supporter in 2000, I have great respect for his military record, & his steadfast support for victory on Iraq. He is flat out unacceptable on illegal immigration and his late conversion to "border security" (which I did not read for the first time today) does little but paper over his prior zealous efforts on behalf of amnesty.
No change in position
by Adam C
just a change in tactic. Sen. McCain and the rest of the comprehensive reform advocates wanted to a) secure the border and b) provide a path to legalize those here already. The idea that they didn't want to secure the border is a misleading attack. The concern that they wouldn't follow through and do it is a legitimate concern.
That is what Sen. McCain changed his strategy to correct for. He sees the distrust and believes that the government must first secure the border to regain that trust. Then he wants to move to earned legalization.
He wants the same end goal so it isn't really a change in policy. It's a changes in strategy and tactics. And it puts him smack dab in the middle of the country on immigration. His movement toward a two step strategy should be seen a success by the Enforcement First crowd since he is effectively espousing that view now. Of course, he will never be a part of the Tancredoite anti-immigrantion crowd. And hopefully the Rs won't nominate someone who is anti-immigrantion.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Being the son of two
by DaMav
Being the son of two immigrants not born in the US I could never be anti-immigrant. However I am, as you no doubt guessed, opposed to illegal aliens. I think we will just agree to disagree on McCain and his conversion. I don't enjoy fratricidal strife when the target ought to be the Democrats.
I defer the last shot to you and wish you victory next November!
"last shot"
by Adam C
I'll just say that I don't think McCain "converted." He has a goal and thinks he can accomplish it by changing the path to that goal. The path he is now on is much closer if not identical to what some of his critics said in the past year. It is still far from what other critics (i.e. Tancredo) would want.
And you are right that the internal strife need not be the focus, although the primary is the time to do it, if necessary.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
5 (nt)
by Neil Stevens
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Please, no more....too funny...
by cwilson
Sen. McCain and the rest of the comprehensive reform advocates wanted to a) secure the border
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Was this before or after they were calling us Enforcement First guys "nativists", "xenophobes", "racists", and "bigots"? When guys on "my side of the big ditch" like McCain and Bush use the same language to libel me as used by Ted Kennedy and his ilk, I /remember/ that. I'll believe McCain has really switched to enforcement first, when I get my apology for that libel.
But right now, I can't stop laughing...
Yeah, okay.
by Adam C
Could you provide a link where Sen. McCain called you a nativist, xenophobe, racist, or bigot? I know there are some of each of those in the R party (and D party and other parties) and some of them have more time on TV than I'd like, but please at least provide some evidence for that assertion.
Or get over your childish tirade and get serious about accomplishing something. If McCain wants to secure the border first b/c he sees the distrust of government, at least recognize a success where it hits you in the head.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
He "changed his strategy" in 1999 on abortion too. He "changes his strategy" on things more often as Romney does. So much for the "maverick" who isn't afraid to take an unpopular position. Maybe he is just oblivious to what the popular position happens to be or what impact adopting it will have on his political ambitions. That's not much of an endorsement of a guy who wants to face Hillary and run the party.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If he were trying to woo independents and Democrats in the general instead of conservatives in the primary. Lucky thing for us we will never have to find out.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
BS
by Adam C
Look if you just want to spout anti-McCain fervor for giggles, go ahead. But if you'd like anyone to take you serious at least back up your misstatements.
Sen. McCain has always been pro-life. His NARAL voting score is 0, IIRC. He made one statement about the country not being ready to overturn Roe and people who dislike him tried to make him into a pro-choicer because of it. He has the most consistent pro-life record of the big 4 candidates. He never changed his strategy nor his policy on abortion.
And I know he wanted to use the surplus to pay down the debt rather than to cut taxes, but IIRC he saw the effect of the tax cuts on the economy and wants to extend them. It would have been better if he realized the cuts would have that effect in the first place, but I'll take someone who learns from seeing good policy in action.
And if you don't think he will defend an unpopular position out of conviction, you haven't seen him talk about Iraq or you haven't seen what the country thinks about Iraq.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
One statement? Two statements? Twelve statements? I'd say, pretty much by definition, one statement is all it takes to be inconsistent. You like to pretend that immigration is the only thing he has "changed his strategy on" but the fact is, it isn't. He "changed strategy" on life for a few days back in 1999. It didn't work out so hot so he backed off and "changed strategies" again, back to his original "strategy" on the issue. That's a profile in courage right there. It really shows how he follows his convictions, regardless of political cost, doesn't it?
The same goes for the tax cuts. He was against them before he was for them. At least more than a few days passed before he flipped on that issue... so he can pretend he "saw the light" rather than simply decided he didn't have a chance in the primary unless he backed the renewal of the tax cuts.
As for Iraq, you don't win the Republican primary by being anti-war, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The unpopular position on Iraq in the Republican primary would be the Ron Paul position. He has not adopted that position.
He takes no heat for any of this. He's the guy who isn't afraid to tell it like it is and he never changes his positions for political reasons. Except when he does.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Agreed, Adam
by Charles Bird
Funny that the borders firsters won't take McCain at his word on this, but will accept Giuliani's word that he will appoint conservative judges.
agreed on all points Adam C.
by bellpe
You've offered a well argued rebuttal on all points above re: immigration reform. McCain has, as he tells it, heard the message from voters "a thousand times" since the summer. It is indeed a change in approach, not in position.
Blogging at Blogs4McCain.com
I respect McCain
by Dienekes
He is unquestionably a hero. It would only be fitting for such a one to sit in the Oval Office. He was right about the surge, and I was wrong when I feared an increase in troops would only lead to an increase in casualties that would, with the help of a treasonously persepectiveless media, harm the effort's support among the weak-willed public and its short attention-span. I give him much credit for this.
I don't have a problem with the Gang of 14, and I basically trust him on judges (certainly more than Rudy). I can reluctantly forgive his refusal to support a marriage amendment, though I think he is very much wrong. My instincts would lead me also not to favor such an amendment, all else being equal, however activist groups and judges make all else decidedly not equal. If the groups threatening the institution of marriage were not so strong, an amendment would not be necessary. But they are, and it is. If he will appoint good judges that will turn back that threat, it will be close enough though.
and I can forgive him for McCain-Feingold, because I agree his intentions were good (I do wish his cure wasn't at least as bad as the disease, however, and while I agreed with his desire to do something about it, it was never as important an issue as he made it).
Though I side in principle more with McCain's opponents on immigration, I'm sick of both sides of the debate. That he seems to have come more toward the center is enough for someone like me who is sick to death of the issue not to dismiss him entirely.
There are three big problems I have with McCain which I cannot overlook however, and make it unlikely that I can vote for him in the primary:
1. His unwitting aid to the propogandists of enemies like AlQaeda, Famed Nazi Hunter Dick Durbin and his Democratic Party allies, and the gaggle of so-called "human rights" organizations, on the issue of torture. He is generally right of course, and like with CFR and the marriage amendment, I have no doubt his intentions are good, but his statements only serve to allow said enemies to draw the implication that we are torturers. And someone like him, who still bears the wounds and handicaps from REAL torture should know that waterboarding, from which a victim recovers in minutes, is NOT torture. Words have meaning, and this defining down of torture, this moral equivalency MUST end.
2. His support of embryonic snake-oil research. This is as huge an issue for me as abortion, and why I lean towards Mitt or Mike. And similarly,
3. His coddling of the Global Warming Cultists.
As I've said, I can forgive policy differences and good intentions gone awry, but these three things cross the line. These are basic Truth and falsity propositions, and in each he gives aid and comfort to the charlatans, hucksters and frauds, malicious liars who pave the road to hell with the good intentions of people like Sen. McCain. (some would say the same of campaign finance reform and immigration, but at least in those cases he recognizes real problems and attempts to find solutions).
Red Herring Alert
by Ed54
The argument that McCain somehow boosted enemy propaganda by opposing waterboarding and torture is nonsensical. I challenge anyone to post an example of Al Qaeda propaganda saying "the US Congress outlawed torture, which proves they were doing it." That is utterly illogical. I seriously doubt the enemy or the larger middle eastern population has any idea who McCain is or what he has said on the issue.
The fact of the matter is this: the political damage to our image overseas had already been done before McCain opened his mouth. The actions he led in Congress started us down the path of repairing that damage. As is often the case, that involved us eating a small amount of short-term crow in the cause of longer term benefit.
I have been waterboarded in training. It was not so bad. But that is only because I knew that the people doing it would not harm me, and that they would stop once I "got the point". Had it been done by people I knew were hostile, with no idea when it would stop, it would be an unbelieveably terrifying experience. I would consider it akin to experiencing hundreds of back-to-back "mock executions", with no idea which execution would be the real deal. International law clearly and unequivocally establishes that mock executions are illegal.
You do have a valid point on the term "torture". Much of what has been banned should be more accurately termed "abusive treatment". But we still shouldn't do it, and McCain was right to ensure that our laws were unequivocal in prohibiting it.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
not at all
by Dienekes
just look at how the media portrayed the episode: as a "rebuke" to Bush administration policies.
now you'd probably be correct to say that the America-hating fabulists (and their Bush-hating fellow travelers) would have kept spewing the same lies and accusations whether McCain had opened his mouth or not. all too true. but he certainly didn't help matters, and he ought to have been responsible enough to realize that his words would or could have consequences (unlike his Democrat colleagues who at best cared not what the consequences might be, and at worst desired to actively bring about those consequences). but again, for all that, I do think his heart was in the right place, and perhaps still could have set that aside except for the exacerbation of his irresponsible comments with his waterboarding comments. though I'll come most of the way toward you as you did to me in your final paragraph and say certainly we shouldn't be doing it just for the fun of it. but it would be insane to say enemy combatants deserve white glove treatment (of course the same goes for our own criminal prisoners which too often get it). so long as we don't cross the line to REAL torture, make them miserable.
I can't imagine how implicitly acknowledging as truth the lies of the critics could possibly have "started...repairing that damage." Indeed, the Democratic howler monkeys still say America's reputation is irreparably ruined - unless we give them the power they thirst for.
and let me reiterate
by Dienekes
I find much to admire in Sen. McCain. sometimes he is exasperating; there are reasons not to vote for him. but there are also reasons to vote for him.
compare this to his good friend Sen. Thompson. I can't imagine why anybody would be against him, but then I can't imagine why anybody would be for him, either.
Given the choice between the two, I'll take McCain.
and let me reiterate
by Ed54
There are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Sen. McCain. But his position on torture is not one of them.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
It really doesn't matter how
by Ed54
It really doesn't matter how the media HERE portray the issue. They were always going to portray it in a negative light anyways. It may tick us off to see things continually spun against us in the American media, but it's not "enemy propaganda." Besides, the US media has about a 2 week attention span before they are off to the next thing.
The fight is overseas. The target of enemy propaganda is first and foremost the Arab and Muslim populace we are trying to build as allies against Islamic fundamentalism. In the long run, codifying US law as unequivocally against torture helps us in that campaign. McCain was able to see through the short-term partisan noise and home in on the really important central issue, which is strengthening our moral authority as a nation. In the long run, that will gain us more than any transient benefit we might wring out of prisoners.
I admit to being a little single-minded. But to me, the war really does trump all else. When I retire from the Army next spring maybe I'll chill out. But for now, progress in the war trumps short-term bad press at home.
You do seem more thoughtful about the issue that many McCain-haters who make the specious "torture ban = enemy propaganda" argument. For most of them, it comes across mainly as an attempt to justify a visceral dislike of a man who stuck his finger in their eye back in 2000.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
you see I agree
by Dienekes
and this is why I have some degree of criticism for McCain here. the partisan noise was coming from the left, exemplified by Sen. Dick "gulag" Durbin's disgraceful comments. again, I think McCain's position (minus the later waterboarding=torture bit) is absolutely correct, which is why a statement that WE ARE NOT TORTURERS (or to quote persona non grata Alberto Gonzales to McCain's buddy Lindsey Graham: "We are NOTHING like our enemies, Senator", a statement for which I will ever applaud him) would have been the way to go, rather than statements that could be wrongly interpreted as an attack on the conduct of the administration or of our soldiers (again, not an attack I attribute to McCain himself, but to those who twisted his less than helpfully worded comments to draw the implications they wanted). and here is where I certainly view the MSM (not just here, but in Europe and the Arab Street) as enemy propaganda. because I too view progress in the war as the most important thing, and I see the dishonest and biased attempts of the media and the left in this country and elsewhere to undermine puplic opinion as the greatest threat to that progress. our heroic men and women cannot be defeated on the field unless they are defeated at home. the only reason, for which I thank God, such treasonous undermining has not yet succeeded is the superhuman resoluteness of President Bush and a few brave others, notably Sens. McCain and Lieberman. So while I give the Senator much deserved credit for being one of the bravest men in Washington on the war, I do see his occasional tendency to muddy the waters with statements which, while right in principle, could be stated in a much more helpful manner, as a worrying problem. Not an insurmountable one, and quite probably one which would not be as manifest were he President, but a needless headache that should have been avoidable if only he were more clear that his clarity of principle was an affirmation, not an attack, a statement not of what we ought be but are not, but of what we in fact are.
allow me to rebut a few of those claims
by bellpe
1. As Charles writes above, perhaps more than any other American today, John McCain knows torture. This is not simply a moral issue of conscience, it's one that defines us around the world. I agree that the "blinking red light" scenario is one where we must have all options on the table. Unlike Mitt, who said he'd have to talk to the lawyers -- McCain would act immediately, and without hesitation.
2. Mitt (who you cite as an acceptable alternative to McCain on this issue) actually supports stem cell research. He says as much in this 2005 interview -- and ties it, oddly -- to "economic stimulus". McCain scores a 0% from NARAL, and has a consistent, long, and strong pro-life voting record.
3. If we're going to go down the road of addressing global warming, we might as well use market-based approaches that won't damage our economy. Debate on global warming has moved from science to policy. Regardless of whether you believe the threat is real, there are very REAL policy implications coming down the pike.
Blogging at Blogs4McCain.com
as I said
by Dienekes
1. precisely BECAUSE he knows torture, he ought to recognize that waterboarding does not fit the definition, and makes it all the more disappointing that he does not.
2. Mitt has been the strongest top tier candidate against EMBRYONIC stem-cell (snake oil) research. Its what he predicates his "flip-flop" on abortion on. I know of no one who opposes adult
Although, I have Fred and McCain switched in my rankings, I think for no more reason other than that I think Fred has a much better chance of getting the nomination and needs help getting by Giuliani and Romney up here in New England (where I'm at).
Plus, I secretly fantasize about a Thompson/McCain ticket. From what I understand, they are good friends and are similar on the issues.
I happen to be a guy who doesn’t get up every morning hating my country. Roger Ailes