Redstate

Does he have the conservative cred any more? Will Dobson and his followers ever respect somebody who clearly has independent thought, conservative or otherwise.  The problem isn't whether McCain is conservative or not, it's whether McCain will succumb to the far right in order to win the primary.

Though I was in my political infancy in 2000 (21 y/o and fresh out of college), I too was a big McCain supporter.  Heck, I even wanted him to run independent when he lost.  (Hey, at least I wasn't a stereotypical college liberal!)

I disagree with him on immigration and CFR, but other than that I still like and respect the guy.  I  liked it when he called out the radical religious conservative extremists, though it did cost him dearly in the primaries.

Of all the "candidates" for 2008, he and Gingrich are the ones I admire the most.  Unlike the Romney's or the Guliani's (and, yes, our current CINC), to me they both don't need to be told they can be president to actually run for the office.

Plus, he'd annihilate Hillary.

I supported CFR at the time, but I was mistaken.  I wish McCain would realize that as well.  However, I do think his incentives were different than the Dems on the issue.

I agree with the McCain-Kennedy immigration proposal so that helps him in my eyes although it will alienate others.  That being said, he is in line with President Bush on that issue as well.

FWIW, I was younger when he ran... and he would totally annihilate Hillary.  I'm talking about winning CA, NJ, PA, MI, WI, MN, OR, WA, etc... totally annihilate.

Between McCain believing America isn't ready to repeal Roe v Wade and his opposition to all of Bush's tax cuts, that leaves very little Republican base to vote for him in the primaries.  Then there's McCain-Feingold and his sponsorship of higher fuel economy standards, and it's obvious why Democrats like him and Repubicans don't.  He may be conservative in the classic Goldwater sense, but such conservatism is poorly correlated with the modern Republican Party.

I'll amend my previous comment.  The one circumstance under which I believe McCain could win the GOP nomination is if the Republican brand were severly tarnished through large scandal or economic calamity.  That is the only way I see his dissociation from the Republican mainstream to be an advantage.

Well, I guess it doesn't take much to get troll-hidden around here.  All I said was that he probably didn't have the credentials to curry favor with the Christian conservatives (was calling them far right what got me trolled?) and that his independent streak was too strong for them.  

I thought I was giving my honest opinion, but I guess that's not very valued.

a quick study.

As much as I like to see the countryside scoured for alternatives, it seems like it is going to be hard to come up with a better candidate than McCain is likely to be.

There is a lot to be said against him, as there is against anybody, but that said, there is a lot for him.  He isn't really a democrat after all, just not as conservative as I might want.  If the GOP is going to be a really dominant party we might have to take turns with the "kinder-gentler" wing of the party.  [Hasn't somebody said/written that 43 is more like RWR than 41?  Maybe McCain is more like 41?]

You are generally correct.  But no one argued that he would curry favor with the Christian conservatives.  However, many astute commentators/Americans may note that Republican NOT = Christian right.  It is a coalition and a diverse one at that.  McCain would only win if he gets a bigger base outside the religious right.  And if several social conservatives jump in (Santorum, Brownback, Huckabee), then McCain could gain from a split.

***Note, I hope no one takes this as me endorsing Mr. McCain in 2008 in any way.  My top choice remains GOV Bush of FL.  He is a staunch conservative who is mightily popular in a swing state with a Hispanic family and a strong Catholic religious background.  Since he is not running, I'm still open to possible contenders... and it is 3.5 years away after all.

Will Dobson and his followers ever respect somebody who clearly has independent thought, conservative or otherwise.

Not very respectful, dude, not very respectful. Disagreement's fine. Not agreeing with social conservatives is fine. But repeating talking points about Dobson and a legion of followers isn't going to go over here. We try to stick to civil discourse. We don't always do it right, and sometimes the established posters get away with more than the newbies. But dude, the attitude has to change.

Modify your statement to what you said in your last post:

"He probably doesn't have the credentials to curry favor with the Christian conservatives, and  his independent streak is too strong for them."

See? Now you actually get a lot of the RedStaters agreeing with you.  

We've tussled plenty of times before on this, I'm starting to realize that we just won't see eye-to-eye.

I would just point out that McCain's lifetime ACU rating is 83 - whereas in 2003 and 2004, his ratings were 75 and 72, respectively. I can only imagine that his 2005 rating will dip into the 60s.

In other words, he's not the man he used to be. His constant press-hogging is not just press-hogging, it's press-hogging by moving left. And if he continues on this track, he will be virtually indistinguishable from Specter and Chafee.

The mainstream media really likes John McCain. They like to juxtapose him with other Republicans to try to make it look like there is major dissent in the party. The fact of the matter is that they are using McCain, and a lot of Republicans criticize McCain for it rather than the media.

McCain is quite conservative, but he's also pragmatic. I know primary voters don't want to hear the truth, I know they don't want to hear political reality, but the brass facts are that John McCain is a relatively conservative Republican and he's extremely reliable on foreign policy issues, in my opinion.

I think the cannibalism ought to stop within our party. I think those who are on the right wing of the party should consider for a moment their choices: they could nominate somebody like Sam Brownback for President and then have to deal with Hillary in the White House for four years. Alternately, they could nominate somebody like McCain and have a Reagan Republican for four years, plus he'll probably pick a young conservative running mate to be his successor, as he's a pretty old man.

McCain is a good candidate and a good Republican. I wish more people were on his side in this party. He doesn't need the help of the media, he needs people like us to get behind him. Perhaps as the election gets closer and it becomes more apparent that we're going to have to put up a candidate who can stop Hillary at all costs, then maybe people will start to come around on McCain.

While I am breaking my vow to not comment in this thread, I will note that Specter actually scored 3 points higher in 2004 than McCain.

I keep hearing the words "McCain-Finegold".  That's "Conservative"?  If you don't believe in the First Amendment, I guess it is.

He rather loudly supported the renewal of the soi-dissant "Assault Weapons Ban".  I guess that's "conservative" if you don't believe in the Second Amendment.

I won't even get off into the upcoming "McCain-Kennedy" immigration amnesty.  (Or would it be "Kennedy-McCain"?)

And I'm not going to even touch his leadership of the Gang of 14.  It made me sick to my stomach, even without getting to see McCain standing there saying what a great Statesman Robert Byrd is.  

I'm expecting a "McCain-Clinton" health care bill any day now, too.  Watch and see!

I won't even get off into how strange it sounds to me to hear someone claim that McCain's motives on the Campaign Finance bill was to keep the politicians out of hock to special interests.  He's the special interest donor's leading man.

And be it noted that Bush was at least as much a "small Government" Conservative as McCain is.  We've seen where that's gotten us, now haven't we?

The man speaks with a forked tounge.  He's all about John McCain, and nothing about being Conservative.

I like his pro-life stance, but that's about 10 points on a 100 point scale, and he's not done anything that gets him another 20 points beyond that, as far as I can see.

If he's a legitimate Conservative, I'm in line for the throne of the UK!

I don't think it is cannibalism I think it is politics.  How can you trust a guy whose single greatest policy idea - CFR - is a travesty on such a scale?  You can't trust a man who is in love with the sound of his own voice and whose main aim of late seems to be to please the press.  He seems inclined to be antagonistic to a large part of the base, that is not a good thing.

You can talk about his past all you want but running for president is going to push him further left not right.  If I don't have other options I might consider it but he certainly isn't my first or second choice.

"McCain believing America isn't ready to repeal Roe v Wade"

Isn't this President Bush's view too? I don't want to look up the link, but it was along the lines of we need to change the culture first. How is that different from McCain's view?

Now about that tax-cut thing....

But no one argued that he would curry favor with the Christian conservatives.

Unfortunately for McCain, Christian conservatives are the 800 pound gorilla of the Republican Party - witness the Schiavo case as an example.  This is particularly true of the primary voters.  Further, the Party establishment has a lot of sway, and it won't be swaying for McCain.

Bush ran as a compassionate conservative with no arguments for small government.  He has continued to ignore small government objectives and it has let many Republicans who are small government Republicans feel left out of a growing socially conservative, economically liberal (i.e. big spender) party.  We need someone with balanced budget creds and a commitment to Reaganite small government.

A brief sampling of my many problems with John "Edgar Suit" McCain:

1. No Republican should ever promote himself at the expense -- at the explicit expense -- of his Party. Never. Certainly not when contemplating a Presidential bid. One Republican even framed a commandment about it. Kinda famous. You may have heard of him.
   
   
2. His reputation as a conservative precedes his Presidential run. He has trended left over time. If I want a Rockefeller Republican in the presidency, there are plenty of options on the table. With slightly smaller egos.
   
   
3. McCain is pro-life compared to the Northeastern Republicans. Compared to the Party as a whole he's left on it. Which leads to...
   
   
4. Stem cells. Sorry. You want to slice and dice people for medical research, you not only don't belong in the Republican seat for the Presidency, if I had my way, you'd be cast out of the Party and the mainstream of this country. Since I can't have the latter two, I can have the first.
   
   
5. Actively pressing to limit the most elementary political right we have is an automatic disqualifier for higher office. No matter how the Economist spins this, there is no conservative reason or excuse for knocking the legs out from under political speech.
   
   
6. He's decidedly in favor of cutting spending, except when it's his pet project. Which means he's the same as the rest of the bums.
   
   
7. One of the Novaks once famously opined that the only reason God put Republicans on this Earth is to cut taxes. Let's just say McCain has failed to prove his bona fides there.
   
   
8. Normalization with Vietnam. Enough said.
   
   
9. Rick Lazio came within spitting distance of Hillary! and he was so bad the word "amateur" is an insult to actual amateurs. The idea that McCain is our one, true Hillary! panacea is insulting and factually ludicrous.
   
   
10. No Republican should tack so well with the mainstream media -- otherwise, he'd be called a "Democrat."

I could go on. That's a good opening list. I'm there with bells on to stop the old egomaniac come 2008, if he doesn't blow his own feet off first.

Calling John McCain a pragmatic and a conservative doesn't make sense.  You can't be one and the other at the same time.

He may still hold some positions in common with conservatives, despite his turn toward big government in recent years, but that doesn't mean he is a conservative anymore.

A good Republican doesn't work with Kennedy for illegal alien amnesty, Lieberman to bring in the  Kyoto Protocol through the back door, Feingold to trash the first amendment, and the Democrats in general to oppose tax relief or prevent the Senate from giving a vote to all the President's judicial nominees.

I could never vote for him.  He holds enough damaging positions as it is, and the trend makes it look like he'll only get more 'pragmatic' as time goes on.

(I'm taking headline lessons from Erick)

Up until about a month ago, I would have been joining the side that says no McCain, no way. But after someone asked me what's so bad about McCain, I have come to a different conclusion.....

I say this as a big supporter of President Bush and most of his policies, but isn't the biggest problem with McCain is that he (consistently) violates the 11th commandment. When John McCain disagrees with Republicans, he runs to the microphone to do so. The `look at me, I disagree' attitude drives me nuts. His style is most of his problem.

Comparing issues:

McCain proposed CFR, but President Bush signed it, what is the difference?

McCain's stance on pro-life issues is the same as President Bush (change the culture before change the law) with the exception of the stem cell issue (and a lot of the Republican Party is split on this as well).

McCain's stance on immigration is the same as President Bush's guest-worker policy.

McCain's foreign policy would probably be more aggressive than President Bush.

McCain doesn't believe in the Bush tax-cuts, that is a big problem (probably big enough for me not to vote for him in a primary), but McCain has consistently been more of a hawk than President Bush when it comes to spending.

The jury is still out on `the deal', if in another 6 months we have dozens of new judges confirmed including a SCJ or 2, some might think differently of the compromise (the guy did vote for Bork when he had the chance).

If McCain took an anti-tax pledge, I would vote for him. There are a lot of issues that I disagree with President Bush on, and there are issues that I disagree with McCain on, but there is a bigger picture to think about - we can't pass the laws we want unless we win elections. McCain presidency coupled with an expanded majority in both the house and senate would be a good thing. The legislative branch passing `conservative' laws, a President McCain would only get to sign or veto. You never have a candidate that perfectly represents your views. I haven't decided to support McCain in the primaries in 2008, but I am certainly not going to shut the door on it yet.

I'm not sold on the NO MCCAIN movement.  I can understand the gripes that farther-right conservatives have with him, their objections to what they perceive as spin from The Economist, and many of the criticisms make sense at face value.  But as was amply discussed, he is a true Reagan Republican when it comes to foreign policy and national defense.

I have always argued the <i>single, solitary, number one priority</i> of the President of the United States is foreign policy and national defense, far above and beyond anything else.  With that in mind, few candidates rival Sen. McCain in that department, especially against a party that lacks any vision for national security issues.

To be fair, I am far from being the RedState expert on conservatism.  I am here more to learn about it than to preach it.  Like Adam, I am by no means endorsing McCain 2008 (at least not yet), but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the threat of intraparty "cannibalism."

"No Republican should ever promote himself at the expense -- at the explicit expense -- of his Party. Never. Certainly not when contemplating a Presidential bid. One Republican even framed a commandment about it. Kinda famous. You may have heard of him."

I thought the 11th commandment was that Republicans don't speak ill of other Republicans? And yet, a lot of Republicans violate this commandment with regards to McCain.

He is, frankly, a metastized cancer. We can't remove it -- it's too tangled in vital tissue -- but by God we can limit the spread.

I grumbled silently to myself through the Nineties. When he decided to shoot at the Party and its base during his ego-trip, pardon, Presidential run in 2000, that tossed it out the window for me -- time to pack up the chickens and toss the silver down the well on civility for the loon.

Needless to say, McCain is not popular with the majority of conservative GOP activists. You had better bet that he's going to be dropping hard in my next presidential candidate ranking. I knew he had enemies within the party, but every day he seems to become more and more alienated.

I personally find him imperfect but would vote for him over virtually all Democrats. Nevertheless, it ain't just about my personal voting preferences.

McCain does have his faults (the whole media thing bothers me to no end). I guess I just think we are going too far in criticism of him.

Actually, the campaigning for the President and the confluence of views on a multitude of issues has really upped the chance that the "party establishment" (aka Bush machine and Rove) could get behind McCain.  Rove's stated goal is a generation of Republican dominance which McCain's appeal to centrists and independents could help solidify.

He will have more problems with the grass roots and especially religious conservatives.  But business interests, foreign policy hawks, and budget hawks could see him as an alternative to a social issue focused campaign.  

Alright, listen we can argue back and forth on policy questions all day, but I still come back to the point that I consistently make on this site - issues do not win or lose elections, people do.

Now, the single issue which creates an exception to that rule for me is abortion. And I will grant for the sake of argument here that McCain is about as pro-life as Bush. Fine. He'll still never get my vote, and here's why.

I was pretty tepid about my support for Bush in 2000 - I had a lot of concerns about "compassionate conservatism" that sounded a lot like "liberalism" to me. But at least he wasn't Al Gore, and so he got my vote. What I have learned about Bush since is that he is a man whose character sticks when it counts. When the chips are down and difficult decisions need to be made, he knows how to do the right thing in the face of public opposition and bad press. Further, in watching the judges that he nominated, I learned that the character of his pro-life credentials were a lot stronger than his rhetoric.

In contrast, what I have learned about the character of McCain is that he is a man who, above all other things, is concerned about his own image. It's not just that it's irritating that he runs to find a microphone every time he disagrees with the GOP, it's that it's troubling in what it says about him as a man. It says that attention and accolades are more important to him than principle. And please don't try to tell me that principle was what he was standing on - if that were true, he'd have behaved a lot more like Daniel Inouye, and a lot less like.. well, John McCain.

When you are dealing with a President, that character flaw is not just annoying, it's potentially disastrous. When an individual does not possess a strong moral compass of their own, and instead allows their compass to be dictated by others (the press, whoever), and that person is supposed to be the pace-setter for the free world, you are setting yourself up for some disastrous long-term failures. Observe the 8-year tenure of Bill Clinton, for an example. It was politicaly expedient and popular with the press to sail along and pretend like the USS Cole and other similar incidents never happened, rather than risk grueling wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's a mistake we paid for in the long term, and one that will certainly be made by every popularity hog.

I'll tell you when I first understood John Kerry to be not just the wrong choice for President, but a dangerous choice for President. It wasn't all the "most liberal member of the Senate" mumbo-jumbo, it was the moment when he said in the debate that he personally believed that life begins at conception, but he couldn't support legislation that would protect that life. Conservative or liberal is one thing, but that's when I understood that I was looking at a morally empty man. I get the same sense every time I look at John McCain.

If McCain is nominated in '08, I will either vote Peroutka or stay home. It's just not worth "keeping Hillary out at all costs" to support a man whom I can't trust when the chips are down.

McCain would have a big advantage in a general election, no doubt.  He would also result in the GOP getting creamed downballot, because the base which has been cultivated over the last four years would evaporate.  The Bush / Rove strategy is all about the base - get them energized and voting and appeal to enough in the middle to get to 51%.  John McCain is pretty much the antithesis of that strategy.

He objected to the initial proposal which wasn't even supported by a majority of the Senate.

McCain has the same view of Roe that Anthony Kennedy does: namely, that even though wrongly decided by an activist court that had no right to amend the Constitution by judicial fiat, it has created an expectation of a right to an abortion in the minds of many people.  And that expectation of the right to an abortion will be difficult to uproot.

The 2000 primary nearly pushed me out of the Republican party.  I couldn't vote for either guy, and my vote for Bush in 2004 was solely a foreign policy vote.

In 2008, I doubt the foreign policy issue will be as pressing (at least, we'd better not still be heavily deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan), so I'll expect some (non-'compassionate' or 'big government') conservatism for my vote.

And so will the Republican base, I suspect.

As long as you're equally willing to call it 'cannibalism' when McCain attacks Republican initiatives, as you are to call it 'cannibalism' when Republican activists attack McCain's initiatives, I don't see how anyone can object to that.

With respect to McCain's character (and my post about his policies), I don't think it's as bad as a lot of people here are trying to make it out to be.

Is it always going to be that way, or doesn't a challenger have to cast himself against the President (and the base) to be seen at all?  

Once Bush is a true lame-duck and the campaign begins, McCain may be the frontrunner.  If he is, he wouldn't run against the base, he would try to re-integrate with the base, no?  

Maybe that would be false on his part, but maybe that is part of politics in DC.  Some zig-zag has to be part of politics.  

I believe in the first amendment, that doesn't mean that when I flash by a state trooper at 75 I choose that moment to express my political views on police cars without lightbars.  I wait until my car is parked at home, then I call my assemblyman and tell him what a great deterrent to crime those really tall lightbars on squad cars can be, and what a waste of money those 'slicks' are out on the highway since they are invisible.

Republican NOT = Christian right

I believe that the answer to this question will be ultimately decided in the Republican primary. Here's a related USA Today article, which suggests that the Christian Right, who have taken credit for Bush's re-election, are working to ensure that their issues remain GOP priorities. It does seem like Bush has tried to move the conversation to small government issues, but without much success. Evangelicals continue to be the base of the party, and I don't see that changing.

Senator McCain might still have a bunch of positions that can be identified as conservative, but there's one reason he should never be given a position of leadership in the Republican party: He doesn't lead as a conservative.

McCain's ACU rating shows he votes with conservatives a lot, but when he does he's usually quiet about it.  The times when he's loud, and bold, and a leader are when he's opposing conservatives!

But in the White House, we need a leader who will push the conservative issues, not oppose them.  Having a President McCain pushing for expansion of the BCRA, regulation of CO2, normalization with Vietnam, amnesty for illegals, hiking taxes back toward pre-Bush levels, and all that would be too much like having a Democrat as President.

McCain has his faults, but special interests are definitely not one of them,(or at least compared to most of washington).



I won't even get off into how strange it sounds to me to hear someone claim that McCain's motives on the Campaign Finance bill was to keep the politicians out of hock to special interests.  He's the special interest donor's leading man.



A quick look at opensecrets.org will show PAC contributions.

McCain Senate 2004:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00006424&cycle=2
004&remove=B

which is less than Frist in 2000:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00003147&cycle=2
000&remove=A

which is less than Delay in 2004(Not even a senator):

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?CID=N00005892&Cycle=2
004

and during the Presidential race he had the least amount of large donation contributions:

$1,000+

 $200-$999

 Under $200

Bradley   Gore

 67%       78%

 22%       15%

 10%        6%

Bush     McCain

 75%      35%

 15%      20%

 7%       30%

I just don't want someone smeared for the wrong reasons.

McCain won't run... I'm sure he is just doing all of this for show, he'd be way too old when '08 comes around...

McCain's CFR was horrible, his border policy is horrible...

McCain and Chaffee were the only Republicans to vote against Bush's final 2001 tax cut.

McCain could be the only person with enough personal popularity and fiscal conservatism to tackle our massive entitlement programs.

to the Christian right, if he chose to do so.  I don't know that I am quite in the Pat Robertson/Dobson catagory of Christian right, but I am fairly conservative in politics and religion, and McCain would be palatable to me, especially if my choices are pro choice candidates like Guliani (who I like, but not as a presidential candidate), but he has pretty strong pro life credentials and other things that would appeal to the Christian voter.  The problem is that he doesn't seem all taht interested in making his case to them.

My big issue with McCain are some of his more maverick actions like the idiotic campaign finance reform and positions on immigrations.  

So I guess my opinion is that he could make a case to me, if he tried to build some of those bridges he burned while playing the media currying maverick (his propensity for media attention probably bothers me the most).

although it is hard to say if this move is because he believes in it, or if he knows it is the only way for him to get media attention (after all the media doesn't do too many stories or do too many interviews with non leadership party line GOPers).

I think if he really is serious about running, he needs to work harder to rebuild the bridges he has burned regarding his own party, or he is going to bomb.

He has essentially told the party base to go stuff it one too many times, and the grandest piece of legislation with his name on it, is the piece of crap campaign finance reform one.

I don't think it is too late for him though-I think he probably could appeal to the base, but that would mean giving up being the media darling, and really supporting his party again.  At this juncture I don't know that the base would trust him, but it isn't too late, he has some time, the problem is he is too in love with the media to rebuild those bridges, and he plays into the media's "maverick" hand.

McCain's ACU rating shows he votes with conservatives a lot, but when he does he's usually quiet about it.  The times when he's loud, and bold, and a leader are when he's opposing conservatives!

Do you think this is because the media is only interested in McCain when he bucks the party line, or because McCain only goes to the media, when he bucks the party line?

Given I think he is obsessed with getting media attention, but I suspect the media is really only interested in him for his "maverick" behavior, so the times when McCain goes with the party doesn't seem to be as "sexy" as when he doesn't.

He could get PRAs passed and Health Savings Accounts.  I think his appeal to the middle would give those pieces of legislation a major boost.  Then again, he could put full effort behind PRAs right now if he so choose.  It would earn him major creds from me.

you describe, one with solid Reagan-like credentials, does not exist in the 109th Congress.

Gov. Jeb Bush comes closer to emulating President Reagan than any 'known' GOP hopeful, and he is my personal choice for the GOP nomination.  I realize he said he has no desire to seek the nomination for 2008.

That said, I don't know how he would respond to an organized, well managed, grass-roots effort to persuade him to reconsider.

GOV Bush is my #1 choice for Pres.  However, he is young enough that he could also make a great VP choice for anyone... but specifically a reassuring one if McCain gets the nod.

Frankly, there is nothing wrong with that. If anyone has noticed anything lately, we are so bitterly divided as a nation, I think that is what the Dr. ordered. Both parties are treatng each other - not like loyal opposition - but like the other is the scum of the earth. In any other nation where there is a parliament, Republicans and Democrats could easily form a coalition and hold a majority. That is how stable this country is by comparison to others. But as things stand now, both sides appear ready to let us all go to hell rather than admit things need to be resolved together.

I am sorry but I blame the Republicans for that primarily. Bi-partisanship is not "lets you and I get together and do things my way". It is give and take. GWB wanted to unite the country and had every golden opportunity to, but he squandered it completely and, in the end, not even for any good altruistic reason. Who here had even the remotest respect for the bankruptcy bill? Who thinks that that damned prescription addition to medicare wasn't a total giveaway? Who here now is prepared to defend the president's stand on global warming? His own expert was acting on the advice of his former employer and doctored evidence.

It is not that I am anti-Republican but, Nixon still acted in the better interests of the country in everything (except Watergate) including especially the environment and China and was impeached. Bush is all cronyism. He never acted in anyone's interest except who had the checkbook and he doesn't even care who knows it anymore. He is an owned president even now.

I want true honest-to-God integrity back in the presidency and, personally, I think McCain (or, surprisingly  Feingold) is the closest shot we have. Given McCain is conservative, he gets the nod easily.

There. Flame away.

I give Bush an 8 out of 10 on foreign policy.  And about a 3 on domestic stuff.

Why would I want someone who would rate a 6 or 7 on foreign policy and a 1 or 2 on domestic?  Best case, that's a 4.5 average.  And Bill Clinton rated a 4.0 on a 10 point scale, overall.  So tell me the difference between the D and the R at that point.

If it comes to that, I'm going with the Constitution Party.  Like my man Leon said.

because this: I am sorry but I blame the Republicans for that primarily. Bi-partisanship is not "lets you and I get together and do things my way".

I see far more as being the democrat position than the republican one.

I think the DNC has been far more vitriolic and out of line in their attacks than the GOP, but will agree that both sides play this way, I just think the DNC is the worst offender.

I admit I haven't heard his position on this.

criticism of McCain wasn't warranted, just that it is going too far.

going to come with McCain either.  Right now he seems to enamored of the media and having the media like him, and I am not sure he can get over that to do the things that need doing.

I am not sure there are any big names from the GOP that can provide that.  I have seen Newt's name floated some, and I admit I am pretty interested in that-not a sure thing, but I am curious to hear what his case is.

to get this effort underway, and I'm serious about it.

The mid term elections will serve as a barometer of the national mood.  Personally, I think it's trending more 'conservative' than any of the polls are showing, because lately they tend to use only adults, not registered voters or likey voters and definitely not political ideology.  Many conservatives register as unaffiliated for PC reasons, especially on campus.  Grades are at stake although ABOR is making in-roads.

If that trend is codified (increase in GOP majority in 110th Congress) by the midterms, I feel Jeb will be more inclined to reassess his options.

Reassuring would be Jeb backing up Cheney as in Cheney-Bush 2008.  Experience and youth!

He's a pretty strong supporter.  But since that doesn't fit the "maverick who pisses off Republicans" meme, the media doesn't play it up.

Here is a bit on his position:

McCain has been especially supportive of his onetime rival, appearing with Bush at three events over the past two days in trying to prod Democrats into negotiations to include private accounts in a plan to revamp Social Security. The popular senator said that the nation's aging population makes it impossible for Social Security to pay promised benefits far into the future unless fundamental changes are made in the program.

McCain said he supports Bush's plan to allow workers to divert nearly a third of their Social Security taxes into personal accounts. Although those accounts will not address Social Security's long-term funding problems, he said, they do provide "an important link to the future" by allowing workers to supplement Social Security checks with money earned in the stock and bond markets.

It is likely that McCain will be one of the more conservative candidates in the field.  Who is more conservative?  Rudy?  Romney?  Hagel?  Condie?  No.

Jeb likely won't run and Santorum, sad to say, probably won't be in a position to run.  Sure, you might have Frist or one of the other myriad Senators out there, but as for serious contenders, McCain is going to look pretty conservative pretty soon.

This gets a second from me.  

McCain's CFR will come back to haunt him, and if he runs you'll see Tancredo beating him about the borders all the way... but i feel that McCain wont run...

The Ronald Reagan who ran for president in 1980 was not the Ronald Reagan who challenged Gerald Ford in 1976. "Left" of course is a very relative term. As long as a politician falls on the rightward side of the absolute ideological spectrum, saying that he's "moving left" does not mean that he's vying with Hugo Chavez for Leftist Demagogue of the Hemisphere title. The 1976 Reagan would never have attracted the Reagan Democrats to the GOP the way the 1980s Reagan did. McCain, like Reagan, has the ability to attract people who are not traditional members of the GOP, even if doing so annoys the purist elements of the base (as Reagan in fact did too; the "base" candidate in 1980 was George Bush, some of whose supporters were peeved enough to bolt to John Anderson-- not that it made any difference in the outcome). If Reagan's ability to enlarge the GOP's share of the electorate by appealing outside its base was a plus in the 1980s why would McCain's ability to do so now be a negative?

Re: Who here had even the remotest respect for the bankruptcy bill?

Um, the bankruptcy bill was a bipartisan "success". It had been roiling around Congress for years and was not a rightwing Bush initiative.

And I do blame both sides for the current state of affairs. Bush attempted to be bipartsian early in his term: "No Child Left Behind", The Medicare drug bill. The Dems weren't buying.

Re: Calling John McCain a pragmatic and a conservative doesn't make sense.  You can't be one and the other at the same time.

Why not? Conservatism  is at least partly about goals. Pragmatism is purely about means. Why can't one use pragmatic means to reach convervative goals?

Re: Many conservatives register as unaffiliated for PC reasons, especially on campus.  Grades are at stake although ABOR is making in-roads.

This sounds like borderline paranoia. While it's possible political ideology would be used against a student in a highlevel graduate course dealing with explicitly leftwing political matter (pretty much anything with "studies" in the title of the department), in nearly everything else (and certainly in science, engineering, medicine ,etc.) there's no way college faculty would even know a student's ideology, and certainly not his party affiliation. This notion that colleges (again, outside of the "Studies" departments) are hotbeds of Stalinist persecution is ridiculous.

In fact, I think he loses somewhere along the lines of 57 - 43.  Please explain to me how he takes a single Democratic voter away from Hlllary in any of the states mentioned above?  And he loses a sizeable portion of the Republican base (that stays home) based on the widespread belief that he is a RINO.

I'm no Hillary fan, but you underestimate her and the Clinton machine if you think McCain can even beat her, much less annihilate her.  You may not think much of Rick Lazio, but she had already changed the momentum against Giuliani before he decided to retire, and was firmly on her way to defeating him (despite all he did for New York) prior to his departure from the race.

Furthermore, by campaigning on a "It's about time" slogan, Hillary pulls a sizeable portion of 20, 30 and 40-something career women over to her side.  They may not like her, but their gut will tell them this nation is overdue for a female president, and all Hillary will need to do is reassure them that she'll govern from the center (which she is successfully doing as we speak), and, given no other female alternative, they'll abandon the Republican party in droves.

Namely the 40% of voters who are "unaffiliated."

Here is a Rasmussen Poll showing a McCain-Hillary matchup and a Guiliani-Hillary matchup.

McCain does much better leading 45%-38% with 10% undecided.  As the writeup mentions, he does worse with Republicans and conservatives, but he wins "unaffiliated voters" by a sizable margin whereas Clinton beats Guiliani in that crowd.

McCain would win over some centrist Dems, but more importantly he would win the independents by a 2-1 margin.  He could lose every one of the 35% of the country that is a Dem and still have a landslide.

In case one poll isn't enough, Here is a Marist poll:

Registered Voters

 Hillary Clinton Democrat 42%

 John McCain Republican 54%

 Unsure  4%

Registered Voters

 Hillary Clinton Democrat 47%

 Rudy Giuliani Republican 49%

 Unsure 4%

Registered Voters

 Hillary Clinton Democrat 51%

 Condoleezza Rice Republican 43%

 Unsure 6%

-----------------

So much for the "we must have a woman" theory.  Whether conservatives like it or not, Sen. McCain is the most popular Republican in the country and would win a general election in a landslide.  That doesn't mean we have to nominate him, but denying it isn't facing the reality of the situation.  He appeals to independent and moderate voters.  He would trounce anyone.

And since I obviously can't research everything before posting, one more thing... from the same Marist poll:

Registered Voters

 John McCain Republican 55%

 John Kerry Democrat 37%

 Unsure 8%

Registered Voters

 John McCain Republican 51%

 John Edwards Democrat 39%

 Unsure 10%

---------------------

So he would probably destroy the other frontrunners on the Dem side as well.  Again, we don't have to nominate him.  But if we do, it will be 40+ states on one side of the aisle.

Stem cells. Sorry. You want to slice and dice people for medical research, you not only don't belong in the Republican seat for the Presidency, if I had my way, you'd be cast out of the Party and the mainstream of this country. Since I can't have the latter two, I can have the first.

Well, gee, that would throw out Orin Hatch as well a bunch of other people.  How about we throw you out of the party for being so dogmatic?

I tend to think that McCain is going to win the nomination, though I might be wrong.  The GOP tends to go for those who are the frontrunner as well as for those who are considered to have payed their dues.  I think McCain will probably wrap up the nomination quite quickly.

Give it your best shot. Good luck with those tight Senate races. And expect lots of joy in small-donor fundraising.

In the interim, Hatch's sanguinity with human experimentation is on his own conscience. Your sanguinity with asinine statements is on yours.

McCain won't clear the primaries. Bank on it.

I would not bet on anybody winning either nomination right now - things are too up in the air (Plus, I'm a Methodist and John Wesley said we shouldn't gamble :)).

I totally reject the sort of litmus test you want to apply with regard stem cells, but that's a discusion  for another time.  I think McCain would excite just as many people as he'd turn off - I don't know that he'd come in with a Reagan-like tidal wave in the House and Senate, but we already control them.  I am thinking that there the 'base' vote in the primaries will be split a a few ways and that Rudy will not win.  By the time the evangelicals settle on the 'Anti-McCain' it will be too late to stop him.

the GOP base would sit home because of McCain is ludicrous--especially if his opponent is a notorious liberal and especially if he takes on a solid conservative for a running mate (say, Jeb Bush). Yes, a few purists may end up voting for some 3rd party candidate in protest, but they would constitute a very tiny minority. After all, how many paleo-cons registered their protests in like manner by voting for Pat Buchanan, and how many libertarians did so last year by voting for the LP? So not only would McCain hold the GOP base for the most part (even if they had to hold their noses while pulling the voting lever), he would be able to capture what is still the electoral prize: the old Perot base. This comprises a very large fraction of the electorate (at least 20%). It consists of middle class people who are solidly patriotic and mostly small "c" conservative in their reflexes, but who are sick of ideological bombast, festering and unaddressed problems, corruption and cronyism, do-nothingism, crude failures of common sense, public religious feuding, and tons of good taxpayer money being poured in after bad. Since 1992 this "radical middle" has been up for grabs. In 1994 Gingrich won it for the GOP Congress, then promptly lost it by failing to deliver on much the agenda it desired. In 1996 Clinton and Perot split it (Dole got almost none of it, except maybe some of the WWII vets). In 2000 it split almost 50-50 with a slight edge going to Gore, hence the awful debacle of the contested election. In 2004 it split close to evenly again, but this time Bush picked up a crucial percentage of it due to security concerns.

Let the GOP figure out a way to win over the majority of this segment of the electorate and they will be the majority party--and be able to govern as well as win elections.

And having watched McCain with a more careful eye since he lamented to W in the primaries about cheap shots and such (military records), I've watched him distance himself from anything based on loyalty alone, and become increasingly calculated in the things he associates himself with.

Anyone watch him explain to Chris Wallace (I think it was Wallace) all of the goodies associated with the "deal"?  Say what you will about W, but at least he tells us(for the most part) when he's sticking it to us...

All around my hick world (60 miles east of where they send all the undesirables, thank you very much Thomas ;-)there is NO suppport for another Clinton in the White House... period...gender notwithstanding.  However, McCain is seen in these parts as a turncoat to the party, and not to be trusted.

If the election were to be held today, Clinton v. McCain, I'd vote liberarian(cause I couldn't stand to not participate).

spent much time on a college campus lately.  My daughter is a sophmore at a fairly large university, and I won't name the institution here in this forum for her benefit.

The student's ideology becomes quickly known by the professor after a couple of essay questions.  

Since earth sciences (read: environmentalism) are taught in the physical sciences, the student is not even on safe ground in those disciplines.

One specific math professor she had devoted a portion of the class time to Bush bashing.

The humanities and social sciences are much worse.

I'm afraid your denial has no foundation in fact.      

I spent five years at the University of Michigan (a notoriously liberal institution) back when the first George Bush was president. The very same complaints you are making now were being made then. In fact those kinds of complaints are quite perennial. Sokrates was given his hemlock because he was thought to be corrupting the young with "new gods" and the like. But when I was at the Un of M the only place I encountered even a whiff of instructorial political allegiance (let alone political prejudice) was in my (honors) econ classes. No where else. Not in math classes certainly. Not in foreign language classes (I took both Russian and ancient Greek). Not in physics (my major). Not in any of my distribution requirements save the econ classes noted above. Of course I was sensible enough to avoid any of the "Studies" classes where I have no doubt I would have found raving ideologues. To be sure, students did discuss politics among themselves and we had a significant coterie of little radicals whose antics alternatingly amused and annoyed. But in the classroom professors and TAs avoided politics with a very serious aversion indeed. So I take all these complaints with a very large grain of salt, and from the same salt shaker I keep on hand when I hear the "victim's whine" go up from any other group.

And we should also note that all that supposed liberal bias has not made one whit of difference out here in the real world. What ideological direction has the country moved over the last generation? Perahps somethig Newtonian is going on here involving equal and opposite reactions.

I supported McCain in 2000, as did many other conservatives I know; many of us thought he'd be tougher on "the truth-twisting politics of Bill Clinton and Al Gore" than Bush, would do better in a general election, and was more likely to build bipartisan support for entitlement reform.  I'm unlikely to support him in 2008, for many of the reasons discussed here, though I haven't entirely ruled him out yet.

But I question whether McCain really deserves his reputation as a small government guy.  It's all well and good to oppose particular items of pork, as McCain has done (to his great credit) for years.  But to cut any real money from the budget (other than from entitlements) you must (1) support wholesale changes in the budget process, and/or (2) support wholesale elimination of existing programs.  I'm not sure McCain is really going to campaign on a credible platform of either one.  Instead, I suspect he will make a lot of noise about "special interests" and "wasteful pork-barrel spending" and all the usual shibboleths.

After 8 years of Bush, the GOP base is desperate for a spending hawk to remedy Bush's greatest flaw.  But we should demand a candidate who promises real, genuine spending cuts, not just cosmetic battles against a waste of $100,000 here and $2.5 million there.

Doverspa and Aleks311, and for the moment I'll concede to your poll numbers.  But I'm not covinced.  For starters, let's not forget where Bush41's poll numbers were a la Clinton in 1992.  Also, McCain couldn't even stand up to a little political rough-housing (with the MSM on his side) from Bush43 in 2000; I doubt he'll well endure a full-scale Clinton (and MSM) broadside.  But tell you what -- we'll meet back here in a couple of years and see how the tea leaves look then.  If I'm wrong, I'll buy the beer!

home, but I am not sure he would get the turn out that Bush did in the last election either-the base just isn't that fired up about McCain-although they could be, if he somehow did get the nomination and Hillary did as well-I think there are a lot of "anti Hillary" voters.

I think McCain is far more vulnerable to attack in the primary, where he has the hardest row to hoe, than in the general.  He carries some baggage, but not nearly as much as Hillary.  

I just don't really see him surviving the primary-even if it means the party base chooses somebody that is less appealing to those in the middle that swing between the parties (just look at the DNC for this election the obvious choice was Lieberman, and Lieberman got creamed by the DNC base during the primaries-I think Lieberman probably could have beaten Bush in the general, because he was strong on security).

Good links. You seem more receptive to the idea that McCain is more of a threat for candidacy than many would admit just one short month ago.

Your right he has undecided votes untouched, unbelievable really. But that's why their called undecided, if the right issues comes up they can change course as if they were schools of tuna.

McCain beats anyone in almost any scenerio. Even unknown stallions that can change the course of elections and history will not have thier normal effect against McCain in this time and place should he be given the opportunity that many American's it seems wish embrace. Although no other "maverick" of "mavericks" has shown themself, there very well could be a "Smarty Jones" in the pack when the starting gates open.

McCain is a hothead, pig-headed and does not have the temperment to be president nor the intelligence.  He is a wonderful American and a patriot whom we will never be able to thank for his sacrifices.

However, he is a HORRIBLE Republican and not a good politician and has poor judgment.  CFR is a joke, actually a disaster.  Check out the details of his Charlie Keating association.

I would NEVER want him as president, God help us.

From a real Arizonan.

will never win the GOP primary.  Thomas and others here pretty much are the reason why.

If by some miracle he could win the primary, he'd win the election, and there wouldn't even be broad suspicion by the left that the election was stolen.

In practice, the media plays a huge role in who wins the primaries.  They effectively chose Kerry and demolished Dean.  Kerry was the worst of the dem contenders, imo.  The 2000 election showed that the media isn't in favor of McCain either.  He won't win the primary in 2008 either.

In 2008 Jeb will run and he will win.  Hillary will almost win the nomination, but won't.  She'll at most be the VP running-mate.  When Jeb wins, there will be rampant speculation that the election was stolen, so much so that 2000 and 2004 will look like absolutely iron-clad victories by comparison.  Of course, that's all predictions from my magic crystal ball, which has yet to be wrong on any of its 2008 predictions!

I keep hearing the words "McCain-Finegold".  That's "Conservative"?  If you don't believe in the First Amendment, I guess it is.

There's certainly something to be said for spending money as one sees fit as being freedom of speech.  However, spending money to buy a hit-man or to support terrorism isn't protected under the first amendment, nor should it be.

To some extent, paying politicians is equivalent to bribery of a public official which ordinarily should be considered illegal, and therefore shouldn't be protected as 'free speech'.  Unfortunately, bribery of public officials is legal because of our twisted system of political financing.  You may disagree that its a form of bribery, but what else do you call a politician accepting money from a person with the mutual expectation that the politician will vote a certain way on certain issues, in agreement with what the donor wants?  That's bribery in my book.

Also, corporations are NOT people, and therefore should NOT have the same rights as people, including the unabridged right to free speech (i.e. bribery of politicians).  If I could make the choice, I would outlaw monetary contributions from non-persons (including organizations and corporations).  This is a government of the PEOPLE for the PEOPLE, not of the CORPORATION for the CORPORATION in spite of what the supreme court precedent says.

Bush's war in Iraq isn't going so well yet I rarely hear conservatives critique his choices in that effort.  They seem to feel that he made the right overall choice even if he is doing poorly in the details.  Yet when McCain tries to reform campaign finance and doesn't completely predict all of the loopholes which will be exploited, somehow he gets condemned for it.  Yes, the McCain Feingold bill has some problems.  But at least it was a step in the right direction.  It didn't violate free speech.  Everyone is free to contribute just as much as anyone else.  Without a cap, people like the Waltons, Ellison, Buffet and Gates would have millions of times MORE free speech than ordinary citizens.  How fair would that be?  Is it really free speech if you're guaranteed to be drowned out by a powerful few?