Redstate

I haven't been able to find a transcript but here's the audio of what McCain actually said on the BBC Today today. Suffice to say that McCain never used the word "disgraceful" during the interview (that was actually from a Commerce Committee meeting from November of 2004) and he made the point that we wouldn't and ought not to sign a treaty like Kyoto that would exempt India and China.  Also McCain used the time to express his support for (a) continuing the mission in Iraq (as well as his opposition for setting a time table for withdraw) and (b) the President's judicial nominees and that he supported judicial nominees who interpreted the constitution strictly.

If you actually take the time to listen to the interview rather than the BBC print's distortion of it, I think that most people would agree that Senator McCain came off as generally supportive of the administration while expressing his reservations in a respectful and constructive manner.

Good catch.

I can see how one might be misled into thinking that McCain's out calling the President "disgraceful" while the President is out negotiating with foreign leaders.

That would be a terrible undercutting of the President's foreign policy powers if true, and if I weren't skeptical of the BBC arrangement myself, I'd have blasted the Senator it.

That's why I stuck to what he said, avoiding the context of where he said it.  I don't care where he called President Bush's stance disgraceful.  For McCain to attack anyone who opposes the bad, political science of "global warming" in this way puts him at odds with a lot of Republicans.

And no Republican should trust him with our economy.  What's the effective difference between Kyoto and McCain-Lieberman?  His bill exempts India and China just as much as the treaty does!

At using the past words of the subject of an interview to establish the direction, set the tone, or frighten the interviewee into expatiating on previous statements in the context of a current story, particularly when the subject is controversial.  But it was the interviewer that brought up McCain's previous use of the word "disgraceful" right from the get-go to give McCain a little jolt.  The beeb is the gold standard at framing interview questions this way, and I've listened to many of them.  But sadly, all of the major news sources are very selective about the comments they put into print after the conclusion of an interview.  You can't listen to everything...they know that...

I thought it was hilarious when McCain stumbled on "greenhouse":  "reduction of the emissions of gashouse...ah, greengas...uh, GREENHOUSE emissions."  It shows just how far off balance the interviewer was able to throw him with that opening "DISGRACEFUL" line.  American politicians regularly get pureed by British interviewers because I think they're generally overmatched in their command of the language by the BBC reporters...

warming is a fact in the geological sense. The planet has been warming up since the end of the Pleistocene. We're probably adding to that effect. But weather is a holotype chaotic system and what the end result of our additional and relatively puny impact will be is highly debatable. Are we staving off another ice age which would be a good thing? Are we likely to shut down the Atlantic Conveyor which might precipitate a cooling spell which would be a bad thing?

Are we raising the global temp which would produce a concurrent rise in sea levels and possibly even set off a round of sublimation in desposits of methane hydrate which would be a bad thing?

The point is we don't know the answers to any of those questions. To find out we need good solid science and lots of it. And if those studies are done by a paid scientist from either Exxon or EarthFirst! we can't rely on the results to make any kind of informed decision.

It's been awhile since the 2000 Presidential election. In that, McCain and Bush battled for the Rep's nomination then and it's quite clear who won. But, the rift that remains between the 2 factions that follow these men within the party is becoming a strain and an "in-your-face" concern to me.

What do we gain in attempts to isolate McCain? Can he really be put in such a position that he is just crushed by those within the party that have poor feelings for him? I know the answer to that is no. He controls a voting block so large, nothing like it has been seen since the Reagan era and literally nothing before that. In fact, no potential candidate has even enjoyed a mass of voters so large, so much in advance on a election, EVER..,

What happens in primaries should be a bygone endeavor once it has occured, but we don't seem to be letting this one go. I'm sorry, but McCain is no Democrat. He is no real friend of the Democrats, but absolutely portrays himself as one that will always have open ears and eyes to them. He is not against the party, and he does not represent a threat to it at all. He is, and has always been a true, and loyal conservative. Yes, he no doubt has views contrary to the President's, and is not affraid to let it be known, (that's a plus, not a negative.)

So many hope that McCain would just go away and speculate that his power and influence is insignificant and will be put in it's place when someone snaps their fingers for it to be so. I don't think that is going to happen. McCain's power will most likely not diminish, and as long a high end partisanship continues, so will the growth of his power. Which by the way, comes from boths sides.

What perplexes me is that so many are so convinced he is going to "ruin" the party, (can't happen), that many have made themselves blind to how politics works so often. He could only help this party. So what if he wins the Presidency, big freakin' deal. The current SC nominations will be done outside any term he may have anyways, and if he just keeps the status quo, should things turn out positively, then all else is gravy for the party.

So here it is. McCain bashing has got to stop. It's like hitting gourselves on the head everytime we do something and does nothing to help the party at all. Bring him in, conceed some power, and take advantage of what he could offer, which is looming and large. It's only going to hurt the party to continue this, the preconception is false and inaccurate. "He will not hurt the party." If I could shout it I would.

If we could just stop tearing our own balls off, and scratching out our own eyes, I think we may have a far better chance at all things to be done.

So please, at least think about it.

So McCain can trash the President, but us primary voters can't express our views?

What is the point of the primary and pre-primary season then, if not to compare candidates and potential candidates?

I think as a Republican, I'm *supposed* to be evaluating these guys, and making an informed decision.  So no, I won't stop bashing McCain until he stops making  himself such an easy target.

Note that I never called him a Democrat.  You appear to have made the two-party fallacy, OhSure, in assuming anyone who isn't a solid Republican must be a Democrat.  There are other parties, and there are independents.  I think if McCain chooses to leave the party (which is no sure thing!), he would run independently.

that most here would know that I understand quite well that there are more than 2 parties I utilized an abbreviated thesis of the current events. It certainly would be nice to somehow acquire the great skill to place and write about every single political condition that could cause my current thinking and how it came to be, but I don't believe that person has been born, much less it being me.

Continuing on. I cannot tell you, or force you or hold your head in the water to "make" you do anything. I merely suggest in a way that attempts to be respectful and insightful. You can go on bashing him all you want, I cannot stop that, but I will effect some, and I know that.

If it is that you believe that this is the best posible way to deal with McCain is to blast him everytime he opens his mouth, I think you'll find he only grows more and more powerful everytime it's done. Repeating something over and over again does not make it true, (as one famous lefty once said who I respected). So do what you will, but you only serve to make him more powerful in your actions, as you put another and deeper wedge between the members of the party. In times of extreme partisanship, it will be the extremes that lose power, and the middle that rapidly grows in strength and that will soon become unmovable should someone not be wise and brave enough to stand up and say, "this is not helping".

So blast away Neil and watch the show, because with that behavior you will be a sideline observer soon enough.

But you do what you will, it's always been, and always will be your choice.

Isn't that what the Democrats said in 2004?

Until the political climate changes, I see no reason to think that base-raising will be less effective in 2006 and 2008 than it was in 2004.

The War on Terror isn't going away.  The Supreme Court battles aren't going away.  The budget deficit shows no signs of going away.

This seems to be a touchy issue for you, though, presumably because you feel marginalized in the current Republican party.  I think you should cheer, up, though.  You could be like me, in California, where my own GOVERNOR is pushing for action on "climate change."  How's that for marginalized? heh

I don't know how much inside you are with the party, but I can't say your views represent numbers normally provided to the public. Agenda polls (or public polls) carried out by various groups to be made public are just that, for public consumption, and almost never provide steely, accrurate info.

With that being said, the info deep within the party does not show McCain in the minority of it, but rather the other way around (Surprise). He knows this by the way, so do many other members of the party like myself. I have never been bothered by being marginalized with the exception when I was younger and more impressionable, as that is the inevitable outcome with everyone's life at one point or another, but it isn't consistant and never remains the same.

Politics is more like O'Connor's resignation. If you don't expect the most unexpected things, your going to be very disappointed. McCain doesn't agree with the President on some things, big deal. There are a lot of members of the Party that don't agree with him on many things that are very prominant and very to the right. If he does not nominate someone like Luttig, and more specifically, Luttig himself for instance, and instead promotes a "Martha (Candy) Stewart" candidate, he then has a bunch more people from the party that will, "Disagree" with him, and vocally.

Somehow a fungus of thought has found a foothold within party members and their thinking and it's seems to be widespread. The Senate for instance. No one is going to abandon Bush right now, not completely, although some may oppose him. You have to have power to oppose by the way, it's not, "JUST DONE", there is a actual "REAL" reason why he does do it.

This may surprise you, and you can believe me or not, no matter to me. But I've seen those insider polls, and he does have the majority right now, (Surprise). If Bush were gone, I would say from what I have seen, you'll see McCain has about 54-61% support in the Senate from the Republican side, another? (Surprise).

I have not had the priviledge to see the numbers in the House, I wish I did. But this tells me something I have had a scratching suspicion about for months, because I could not initially figure out why McCain, so confidently could take on the President, without truly fearing any repercussions from it, now I know.

Should these numbers find substantive confirmation then it is true, that McCain bashing is literally splitting things right down the middle if not more, and again I cannot see how, in anyway, that is helpful.

Now enough. I understand your point of view, and you understand mine. The outcome cannot be predicted by us or anyone else, but I've seen what this type of behavior does to people, families, organizations, politcal parties, churches, nations, and even the damb boy scouts.

So forgive my tone, I do feel very strong about this. If it were another person like McCain, and not McCain himself, I would be babbling the same message.

I don't think that my posting anything further, even in response, will change the repeating message I find myself defending, repeatedly. So, in the spirit of good will I'll leave you with those thought and thanks for the discussion. This beer in my hand here, (click., geeeshhhhh, gulp, gulp, gulp, gulp...,) is for you friend, happy 4th.

I give you my promise, if I see him get out of line where I believe he is actually hurting instead of helping the party or country, I'll change my mind.

Now let's go have a good remainder of this great day.

Fundementally, and within my own personal "laws of decency", this was not the day to do this kind of thing, to not only a fellow American, but also, a fellow party member.

So lighten up my man, LOLOL. Happy 4th.

..that the First Amendment doesn't mean much.  He sponsored legislation that effectively killed it, as far as political campaigns are concerned.

McCain doesn't support the Second Amendment.  He loudly supported the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban.

He hasn't shown much support for Federal Courts that support original intent.

He doesn't care about our immigration laws.  He is working with Teddy Kennedy, (of all people!) to undermine them.

Should I be surprised that he's once more suspected of trying to convert the United States into a "third world" country?

I stand second to no one in honoring the man for what he did in service to our Nation while in the Military.  But he's almost to the point of reaching a balance with the damage he is doing to our Country as a Senator.

Time for him to retire, methinks.

Alright, heh.

McCain's not my candidate for 2008, but I agree that he probably has the largest actual base of all the GOP candidates planning on running at this point and I can appreciate the logic in the arguments of some red-staters regarding McCain's electability in the general and his overall conservatism, even if he waffles on some specific issues.

That said, I'd like to explore the crux of your commentary to try and discover just exactly what is it about McCain that irks conservatives so much.

Some say it's because McCain is a "RINO," but as his voting record shows, McCain takes the conservative position on most issues.  The few times he does deviate from the orthodoxy (immigration, etc) aren't any more significant than those deviations of most other Republicans, including the president.

Others say it's because McCain is a media hound.  But most politicians like to hear themselves talk, and I don't see how McCain is much different from any other senator in this respect.

I can only assume that the harsh feelings toward McCain remain as the residue from 2000, and I especially wonder if it's not more of a distrust for the man than disapproval of his issues.  

We've seen this before.  In 1988, for example, conservatives voted for Bush 41 over a much more pro-life Bob Dole in the primaries.  Why?  Because Dole had run against Reagan in 1980 and had spent the past eight years criticizing Reagan from the Senate.  Conservatives opted with the guy they trusted over the guy who they still bore a mutual grudge with.

I've also heard that McCain-disgust among Republicans is largely prevalent down south.  As I don't live that far south, I'm curious as to whether or not this is true, and, if it is, why.

But yes, McCain does start 2008 with about a third of Republicans under his belt.  And it may take a superstar like Rice or Rudy to deny him the nomination.  

McCain may have a third.  But if he gets to 40% it could well split the party.

He's in the running for RINO of the decade.  If he's the best the Republican party can do, the Republican party is probably going to go back to a minority status that makes the current Democratic situation look like heaven.

And if he is, some of us won't cry over the demise, either.

Sorry, but McCain and Rudy G. and Alberto Gonzales and Spectre and so on aren't my Republican party.  If they are running it, I'll have to look elsewhere.  And I won't be alone, by a long way.

But I think that it's more of a cooincidence than anything that so many of the GOP superstars of today have problems with the base.

McCain's a nat'l figure because of his 2000 run and crossover appeal.

Specter's only the Judiciary Chair because of seniority.

Gonzales is only on so many lists due to his proximity to Dubya.

Rudy G. and Condi are superstars due to terror warrior status, not because of their socially liberal views.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see some sort of seismic shift in the GOP towards a Specter social policy.

If there's a schism coming, it'll take awhile.

The biggest force behing the "Republican" 'mavericks', or 'moderates' is the MSM.  (Note my quotating of "Republican".)

And we all know who the MSM supports, so I'd consider major press for a "Republican moderate" in the MSM to be a Trojan Horse.

But how much of the base is paying enough attention to avoid stepping in the steaming piles that the MSM and the "maverick" people are putting down all over the sidewalks for them?

I had high hopes for McCain fifteen or twenty years ago.  But he's dashed them all.  And Rudy?  Let us not even go there.  I'd take a 'Scoop' Jackson Democrat over either one of them, probably.

In all honesty, I suspect that if Ron Paul got the MSM coverage that Cindy McKinney does, he'd be almost as popular as McCain is.  (Note that I said "almost"!)  But he won't, and neither will any of the true Conservative Republicans out there.  

(And no.  I don't consider Ron Paul to be a real Republican either, even though he runs as one.  But he might be closer to my idea of a real one than John McCain is......Just a little ways, but closer.)

McCain is not only going to the be the leader going into the 2008 Republican primaries, but he is going to carry NH. They love him there.  In 2000 W was fortunate to have no other serious conservative candidate to divide the anti-McCain vote. That won't be the case in 2008.

McCain reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt in many ways. He is maddening, egotistical and loves the media spotlight. But he also brings enormous ability to pull in new voters (especially upscale whites and professionals) that we haven't had since Reagan.

In the end: is anyone here actually going to vote for Hillary over McCain in 2008? Of course not.

More at http://brianwalters.blogspot.com on "The McCain Mystery"

McCain as Teddy Roosevelt, hmm?

Personally, I think Rudy is more like TR.

Anyone else have opinions on who the modern-day TR may be?

There's no chance I'd vote for McCain.  I'd start the US branch of the Monster Raving Loony party before I'd vote for him.  Or, more likely, I'd just not cast a vote for President if my choices were a pacifist Libertarian, an isolationist Constitution Party member, and Senators McCain and Clinton.

Hillary Vs McCain is a no brainer. You have to keep in mind McCain got smeared pretty good by the Bush WH so there's still a lot of that smear hanging on him. But yeah no one is going defect from McCain for Hillary Clinton regardless of what they may say.

Hillary Vs Frist ... I think I'd have to hold my nose and go Hillary. Maybe I'd just flip a coin.

McCain vs Clark however is a problem. Clark would make a formidable candidate against anyone. I wouldn't be surprised to see him as an early dem front runner or on the VP short list.

"The War on Terror isn't going away.  The Supreme Court battles aren't going away.  The budget deficit shows no signs of going away."

These are the issues where McCain has a strong conservative stance in his record.  He has voted for every major judicial nominee including Bork, Brown, Owen, etc.  He is upset and willing to speak up about the deficit even when it upsets the WH.  And his stance on the GWOT is probably the main reason Dems would never actually support him.  He is too resolute for them on pursuing terrorism through military means instead of through criminal trials.

He may be a squish on some issues, but if those are your big 3 McCain could win a Reagan landslide and be staunch on those issues.

If however campaign finance reform and anti-environmentalism are your big issues, then McCain would be problematic.

If McCain is soft on cutting taxes because of the deficit, then I don't see the deficit helping him.

If McCain is soft on border security, then I don't see the War on Terror helping him.

If McCain is soft on making sure solid judges get on the bench, then I don't see the Supreme Court helping him.

I can't help but wonder if we've been watching the same John McCain.

. . . is that they are just as true (substance-wise) for President Bush as they are for Senator McCain.  

Senator McCain co-authored McCain-Feingold and President Bush signed it into law.

Senator McCain called for the reauthorization of the so-called "assault weapons ban" and so did President Bush.  As it isn't going to happen with a GOP Congress and Democrats have begun retreating from their anti-gun positions to court rural and southern voters, I am not too worried about it.

As far as "the Deal" on judicial nominees and whether it will result in a net benefit or detriment to the GOP, I am this close (holds forefinger and thumb about two centimeters apart) to following Adam's example and joining the "Coalition of the Chilling."

And I would be curious if anyone can show me the substantive difference between the position(s) of Senator McCain and President Bush when it comes to immigration reform.  As far as I can tell, rhetorically they seem identical and there isn't a bill on the floor and I'd be willing to bet that if McCain's bill does go forth, the Bush administration will support it.

That is not to say that there are not differences between the two.  As far as I can tell the major policy differences are:

Deficit Reduction versus Tax Cuts Senator McCain favors making deficit reduction a greater priority than tax cuts.  This seems to be the majority position amongst most Americans and chances are that whoever the Democrats run in 2008 (particularly if they pick a more centrist governor like Phil Bredesen of Tennessee or Bill Richardson of New Mexico) will be focusing on how large the deficit is and blaming Republican policies.  Like it or not, we are vulnerable on this issue and someone like McCain is going to be in a better position to overcome the vulnerability.

Global Climate Change Both of them supported the Markets to Methane Partnership.  Both of them opposed Kyoto and think that new agreement has to include India and China.  Both of them favor technology transfers to developing nations like India and the PRC to enable them to "leap frog" and use cleaner technology.  The only difference is that McCain also supports creating a permit trading system to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions rather than waiting for China and India.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research McCain supports expanding on the existing federal policy for embryonic stem cell research.

Entitlement Reform Senator McCain voted against the $749 Billion Medicare prescription drug benefit and pushed entitlement reform ahead of tax cuts during the 2000 presidential race.  I would say he is somewhat stronger than Bush on this.

Substantively there are some differences between the two but they are not as great as the differences would be between pretty much any likely Republican and Democrat presidential nominee.  Frankly I think we do ourselves a disservice and risk marginalizing ourselves by exaggerating those differences in an effort to disqualify some candidates rather than promote which candidate would be better as our standard bearer in 2008.

Well, we might or might not be artificially warming the planet.

Consider: If we AREN'T warming the planet and do nothing, we come out on top.

If we AREN'T warming the planet but take precautionary steps anyway (i.e. limiting Carbon dioxide emissions), we don't really lose that much, besides maybe getting some cleaner air.

If we ARE warming rh planet and take such measures, we'll save millions if not billions of lives, not to mention property that would be destroyed with a global rise in sea levels.

If we ARE warming the planet and do nothing, milions die, coasts get flooded, and the level of physical damage could prompt a global depression.

And so we choose.

In a general election would beat anybody, save perhaps Jesus Christ himself (and even that would be close). I think he's very likely to run as an independent.

You say the Earth "has been warming up since the end of the Pleistocene," but it hasn't.  In recorded history, even, we have evidence of the Earth getting hotter and colder.

The "little Ice Age" wasn't getting us any warmer, and at the end of the Medieval Warm Period we sure weren't getting warmer.

So no, warming is not fact.  It is theory.

(For the record, I would not be surprised if it turns out we are getting warmer thanks to fluctuations in solar input.  The evidence I've seen seems to support that, but I have no way of testing my theory.  That's why climatology is so unscientific in general: the theories can't be tested, so "science" devolves to coffee shop argument.)

Because if you have data supporting this theory a Nobel prize might be coming your way.  The US National Academy of Science, the Royal Society, the Royal Society of Canada, and the National Academy of Science for Germany, China, India, France, Italy, Japan and Russia recently released a report that concluded that not only is global warming an undeniable reality, but that it was almost certainly largely resultant from the industrial increase of 'greenhouse' gases.  The head of the Royal Society said:

Lord May of Oxford, President of the Royal Society said: "It is clear that world leaders, including the G8, can no longer use uncertainty about aspects of climate change as an excuse for not taking urgent action to cut greenhouse gas emissions

Every major scientific body in the US whose subject matter is relevent to climate change or global warming agrees that global warming exists.  This article from Science last year sums up the consensus:

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

Its possible that the scientific community is wrong.  However, unless you are a scientist of soon-to-be-legendary ability who has conducted a revolutionary but as of yet secret set of explorations into the issue, I think your statement is unfounded.

"Deficit Reduction versus Tax Cuts [:] Senator McCain favors making deficit reduction a greater priority than tax cuts.  This seems to be the majority position amongst most Americans and chances are that whoever the Democrats run in 2008 (particularly if they pick a more centrist governor like Phil Bredesen of Tennessee or Bill Richardson of New Mexico) will be focusing on how large the deficit is and blaming Republican policies."

I agree with paying off the deficit before tax cuts.  When you run up bills, you have to pay them.  The deficit is essentially stuff we bought on credit from private parties.  The government is the representative of the people.  If the people individually cannot shaft creditors, the people collectively should not be able to shaft creditors.