Redstate

you'll be flirting with a Hillary presidency.  

I am fairly certain that this man won't be allowed anywhere near the White House due to the good sense of GOP primary voters. Therefore, I don't like to dwell much on him. Nonetheless, this:

"Why is it that the House and the Senate managed to waste our time grandstanding over Teri Schiavo, a flag desecration amendment, increasing FCC fines, and other nonsense but haven't done a g*d** thing about entitlement reform or controlling spending (issues where McCain is demonstrably better than most members of Congress and the President)?"

implies McCain is a friend of free speech. He is not. As a matter of fact, among the litany of charges that can be lodged against him, contempt for free speech is the one that disturbs me most. This same senator, who assures us he doesn't want to shut down talk radio (wink, wink), has proudly proclaimed he had rather live in his idealized world than one that has a First Amendment. He has abridged free speech with his campaign finance reform to a degree that is unprecedented. I don't recall any opposition to FCC regulation that emanated from the senator.

I don't want to go over the Terri Shiavo fiasco, but let us note that needless hearings and interference into areas that are not the business of government have been other hallmarks of McCain's career.

If you support him, fine. Just don't imply he has been anything other than a foe of free speech.

When these acquaintances of yours say that about the party being run by the evil Religious Right, do you even bother to explain that it is the Left and activist courts who have foisted this Culture War on the nation, or do you go along with the myth that it is evangelicals who started the fight.  

Do you even bother to point out how the issues of abortion and gay marriage would not be so prominent on a national level if not for judicial usurpations of power, or do you go along with the leftwing myth that the Religious Right seeks  to divide the country with wedge issues at the expense of the important, pressing matters.  

I mean, you do realize don't you, that the only way the Religious Right will get any good press is if they meekly acquiesce to the courts frontal assault on their values, which by the way, are often the values of most Americans?

Danged if ye do, danged if ye don't... A feeling of powerlessness unnotably tightens one's throat...

(and one of many) of the senator's contempt for free speech. Tout him all you want, but don't pretend he is a libertarian or even a moderate on First Amendment issues. As a matter of fact, McCain is far more of a reactionary on that issue than the evangelicals he trashed in Esquire.

Please show examples of legislation other than McCain-Feingold where McCain has demonstrated contempt for "free speech" (although the SCOTUS disagrees with you on that) in contrast to that of other Republicans including the President whose FCC is now going after sports broadcasters for comments made by members of the audience.

 I voted for President Bush in 2004 for exactly one reason: the war.

I will not be a single issue voter in 2008, and even if I were, Senator McCain's self-absorbed grandstanding on terrorist interrogations would eliminate him from getting a War on Terror vote.

"I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."---John McCain to Don Imus.

I also will post some bizarre things he has done and said as Commerce chair. There are so many soundbites that could be thrown at this man that it almost would be fun to watch him go down in flames in a general election.

"Screw em... what're they gonna do? Vote for Hillary?"

If not for the war, I'd have voted Libertarian over George Bush in 2004 as I did in 2000.

If the whole program crashes and burns, I won't shed a tear.

This dictator wannabe McCain would be the most anti-libertarian candidate EVER to run on the GOP ticket.

He opposes Free Speech.

He opposes the 2nd Amendment (Gun shows)

He pushes to get the feds involved where they shouldn't be - like baseball

He gets money from boxing lobbies and then tries to ban their competition - the UFC (and as a UFC fan, McCain gets a middle finger for that alone)

He's part of the gang of 14 on Bush's Judges.

He's a media whore.

He's corrupt as well. Keating 5.

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

I will NEVER vote for McCain for even dogcatcher. I'll vote for some democrats before McCain.

I won't vote for McCain for several reasons:

(1) He was the first Republican to annouce (on the Chris Matthews show "Hardball") that he would vote with Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer on the "constitutional/nuclear/Byrd option" regarding judicial filibusters.  

This indicates to me that he didn't really care much about confirming Bush's judicial nominees.  Sure, McCain has voted for all of those that have had an up or down vote.  But McCain was more than willing to cooperate with the Democrats and give the Democrats a minority veto over Bush's picks.  And when McCain was in the minority he voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer.  

(2) McCain voted with the Democrats and against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, exactly at the time when the economy really needed those tax cuts enacted.  The Democrats had their talking points prepared for the 2004 election in 2001: Elect Republicans; Watch the economy decline.  President Bush didn't want to just watch the economy go downhill (after he inherited the Clinton recession) and watch Republicans (including him in his 2004 reelection campaign) get killed in the elections against Democrats.  

But McCain, once again, gave the Democrats a "helping hand" by voting consistently against the Bush tax cuts in the spring of 2001 (and again in 2003).

(3) McCain joined hands with John Edwards and Ted Kennedy in supporting the so-called "Patient's bill of Rights" (which really should have been titled "the Trial Lawyers bill of Rights."  Fortunately, the Republican House passed a market-based plan and the bill died in the conference committee.

If McCain wins the nomination, I will neither vote for him or the Democrat nominee.

McCain again shows by his words that he is a divider, not a uniter.  This party does not need dividers.

I guess I shouldn't be shocked, here Minnesota the Libertarian Party originally endorsed a gubernatorial candidate who said that drug companies should not be allowed to advertise. She's trying to run against Pawlenty in the primary but still (ironically enough) is endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus.

"I would never say this publicly, but some of these talk-show hosts, and I'm not saying they should be taken off the air; they have the right to do what they want to do; I don't think they're good for America."

All of which is true.  There is a lot of garbage on talk radio (Air America and Michael Savage come to mind) and there is nothing in this quote to suggest he was referring to Limbaugh, Hannity (who frankly does suck), or Hewitt.  That was simply you trying to put words in his mouth.

"I urge my friends who complain about the influence of the religious Right, get out there and get busy. That's what they do! Now, if we believe in the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, the big-tent party, then we have to get out there and show that. The fact is, some of us have sat idly by while those very active people have basically set the agenda for our party. I get attacked every day because I'm working with Ted Kennedy. How can I work with Kennedy? Because I want to get something done!"

Also true and frankly there's nothing wrong with any of what he said.  The fact is that elections are won and agendas are set by the people who show up.  I've had a number of my acquaintances who have said "I'd be a Republican except that you guys are controlled by the Religious Right."  McCain's comments are well deserved quit-your-bitchin to people who complain that they don't like the direction things are going but are too lazy or unmotivated to show up and try to make their voices heard.  Good for him!

"I understand the frustrations a lot of Republicans feel," McCain says. "We're not representing their hopes and dreams and aspirations. We worry about Ms. Schiavo before we worry about balancing the budget. We're going to take up this Family Marriage Amendment again. Why?

Yes, why indeed!  Why is it that the House and the Senate managed to waste our time grandstanding over Teri Schiavo, a flag desecration amendment, increasing FCC fines, and other nonsense but haven't done a g*d** thing about entitlement reform or controlling spending (issues where McCain is demonstrably better than most members of Congress and the President)?

I voted for President Bush in 2004 for exactly one reason: the war.

Interesting, so things like Social Security reform and judicial appointments weren't factors?

It's not bold or courageous of Senator McCain to implicitly diss social conservatives in an interview with a member of the mainstream media. If he instead praised social conservatives for forming the bullwark in this country against the continuing slide into unhindered hedonism, that would be courageous.

on entitlement reform and a balanced budget but there are too many people in Washington that do not want those types of problems solved.  

Nonetheless, to suggest that Congress should not take a legitimate interest in flag burning or use its power to protect Terry Schiavo's life (the Constitution says she has a "right to life" for crying out loud) is going a bit far IMO.      

A question, but isn't the objection to advertising by drug companies a little more than a free market thing? Aren't there questions about the advertising of prescription medicines that have more to do with medicine and medical ethics?

How else does one first write:

I applaud McCain for four of his positions. One, he is excellent on the war in Iraq; two, he supported President Bush's attempt to reform Social Security; three, he voted against adding drug coverage to Medicare for seniors regardless of income; and four, he is a forceful advocate for limiting pork-barrel spending.

And then conclude with:

Add all of this up, and McCain is certainly no fiscal conservative, not even a defense conservative,

So the guy who supports reforming Social Security, voted against Medicare Part D, and is more proactive than most in fighting pork doesn't qualify as a "fiscal conservative" and the guy who is "excellent on the war" and actually was more hawkish than Bush in 2000 doesn't qualify as a "defense conservative."

It is not blind loyalty to the party that is required. Nobody critizes McCain for voting against Medicare Part D, even though the party supported it. Nobody congratulates him on his excellent immigration bill, even though it is very close to what Bush and the rest of the party leadership wanted. It is serious policy issues, trust, motivations, character, all of these things that are the problem.

But you can rest assured that I won't vote for this man either.

Prescriptions aren't available to everyone in this country.  Only a doctor may legally prescribe a drug.  While no one could dispute direct advertisement to doctors & hospitals (which is what a pharma-rep does all day) to create a product awareness.

Why do non-medical professionals need to even KNOW what drugs are out there, except to ask their doctor for them?  That's NOT why we have prescriptions.

Solution? We used to not allow that advertising...

Where is the evidence that he was talking about Air America? Is it logical when someone complains about "talk radio" to assume they are talking about Air America?  Especially given how pathetic their listenership is? Seems to me that is the equivilant of hearing hoofbeats and thinking zebras.

at him--particularly the soundbite that Americans wouldn't harvest lettuce for $50.00 per hour--he will be out of this race after Michigan. This candidacy not only is overrated, it is over already.

I voted for Bush in 2000 because I THOUGHT that he was a conservative.  He proved me wrong.  I voted for him in '04 because I believe that he will do a better job at keeping us free and that his picks for the court will help take this nation back to the constitution.

Social Securtiy IS going to collapse.  And when it does there's a 50/50 chance that this country will lurch closer to Socialism, or finally toward individual savings and responsibility.  Are you willing to take that chance?  I'm not.  We must care about destroying social security in its current form on our terms.  

First Things first: McCain and I do not see eye to eye on nearly any issue (he's to my right).  That said, I've always liked his style.  Had I been eligable to vote in 2000, I might have even changed parties to cast a primary vote for him, and in the general I may just have crossed party lines to vote for him (By the way, with McCain as the nominee the 2000 election would not have been close).

I sincerely thoguht that, after eight years of Clinton, America could have done with a change of scenery.  I admired his integrity, honesty, and commitment (Clinton had especially been lacking the latter 2 traits).  He was also intelligent and compassionate (I especially admired the stories about his children adopted from Asia).  I am confident that he could have united Americans of all persuasions behind his agenda, right-leaning as it may have been.  If he'd been President after 9/11, I couldn't think of anyone I would have trusted more to lead us in the aftermath.

In 2008 I will be old enough to vote, and unfortunately I can't again promise to cross lines again to vote McCain if he is the nominee.  Mark Warner is the candidate I'm supporting.  

On McCain's chances, he'll be 72 in 2008.  It's obvious that spending the past 6 years in obascurity is tough for him.  Its often been said that the best Presidents in our history are the ones who are individuals, bucking the constraints of party politics to achieve real solutions for all Americans.  His hero TR was certainly such a man (it's no coincidence that Teddy is seen as a founder of both the modern conservative and progressive movements).  Sadly, the age of identity politics (i.e. special interests) has made such men a dying breed.  My theory is this: Conservatives hate McCain for the same reasons the far-left hates Lieberman and the same reasons Republicans are angry with Bush for his immigration policies.  Parties, once seen as means to the end, have become the highest standard to measure oneself against.

These remarks you cite are a perfect example of the state of things.  Of course, I am in full agreement with him and think that Religious Right's stranglehold on the GOP is bad for politics and bad for America.  I think the libertarians in the party have to stand up strong and make their views known.  Even some conservatives around here have begrudgingly admitted that.  It is a bold and courageous move for McCain to say so, and for it he will have no chance to become the nominee in 2008.  I think we'd all be better off in McCain had been the GOP nominee in 2000.  Now in 2006, let's call him what he is- a relic.

1.) Michael Savage and Sean Hannity do NOT suck. Savage goes over the top sometimes (into bigotry, unfortunately), but he's dead right on Islamo-Fascism--and that's the most important issue of the day. Hannity cheerleads too much for George W. Bush, but he's a forceful proponent of sensible positions on a whole host of subjects.

2.)I applaud McCain for four of his positions. One, he is excellent on the war in Iraq; two, he supported President Bush's attempt to reform Social Security; three, he voted against adding drug coverage to Medicare for seniors regardless of income; and four, he is a forceful advocate for limiting pork-barrel spending.

3.) HOWEVER,

One, McCain is hurting the war on terror by his ridiculous rantings about how we treat and interrogate terrorists. We should be able to do whatever the you-know-what we have to in order to get whatever information we can. Two, McCain voted against most of the Bush tax cuts, including the cuts in marginal rates, dividends and capital gains. Those tax cuts have combined to reinvigorate an economy that was on its knees in late 2001 and needed a shot in the arm in 2003. Three, McCain pushed through campaign-finance reform, which is an anti-free-speech abomination. (Other people would add the Gang of 14 stuff, global-warming rantings, "truth-to-power" crap [against certain industries] and immigration, but I view this quartet as more debatable here than the three clear negatives before the parentheses.)

Add all of this up, and McCain is certainly no fiscal conservative, not even a defense conservative, and not somebody who defends our constitutional rights! No thank you.

you'll be flirting with a Hillary presidency.

That's correct.  But I will not vote for Hillary or McCain is they are the two major party nominees.

I'm sending him home in 08.

Even though he signed McCain-Feingold into law which makes him just as culpable as the majority of Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate who voted for it.

Unless of course you refused to vote for Bush or Kerry in 2004 for that reason, bringing up McCain-Feingold ad nausea is simply a shibboleth.

And yes, McCain is in fact better than most members of Congress on the issues of entitlement reform (he was actually more outspoken than Bush on that issue when he ran in 2000), because he voted against the $749 Billion Medicare Part D as well as the pork-ladened energy and transportation bills.

(and one of many) of the senator's contempt for free speech. Tout him all you want, but don't pretend he is a libertarian or even a moderate on First Amendment issues. As a matter of fact, McCain is far more of a reactionary on that issue than the evangelicals he trashed in Esquire.

As an aside, Bush shouldn't have signed McCain-Feingold. If Bush had a consistent record of First Amendment infrigements and contempt, as does McCain, I would have sat out the election because of it. Fortunately, given McCain's rapidly falling stock, I won't have to face that choice in 2008.

I really don't think he is exercising much control over what he says. I don't think there is any strategy at all in this... "giving the finger" to the base is just what he does, by reflex and instinct.

The stuff like his marriage to Falwell is what is scripted. What isn't scripted is he when he says:

* He doesn't support the FMA for federalist reasons

then goes on to say 20 seconds later:

* The thing he regrets most is taking a federalist position (a.k.a. a position of cowardice, according to McCain) and not chastise SC for a flag they choose to fly over their capitol.

McCain won't figure it out and I am glad he won't because his world view is a lot closer to the Democrats than to the Republians. He wants to run down the middle of the road thinking that will put him on top. Conservatives and the religious right won't vote for him and moderates won't vote for him because he is to far to the right. He will be another victim of the Conservative Crackdown. So be it.  

[to bastardize a point from Bernard Goldberg] "I know Bush cheated to get elected, b/c I don't know anyone that voted for him..."  

McCain will be fine in AZ.  

to the Presidency, unless of course, Newt can make a serious comeback.  

Since I'm guessing a President Kerry would have also signed said law, your logic is bull$#!+.  By that same logic, everyone that voted for either Bush or Kerry is also in favor of, say, the War on Drugs, and for that matter any other position that both candidates favored.

Never mind that there were Bigger Issues Out There in the 2004 election.

I can't say that any quote is absolutely fatal being that we are 18 months out from Iowa. However, when this Esquire article hits it may undo whatever progress he made with the Falwell visit.

However, these quotes are serious ammo that his opponents will use against him.

What does McCain have to offer to So-Cons when he so obviously feels they are a nefarious presence in the party?

Rudy and Mitt will be going to the ropes to win over So-Cons to their side. Why would these people vote for McCain? His electoral promise? Rudy would win just as big as McCain and Romney's got a minimum 50/50 shot against Hillary.

It just boggles the mind.  

McCain never mentions any host by name.  The names are from the author of the article referring to anonymous "sources."  If the names had actually come from Senator McCain, they would have been put in quotes.

All of which is true.  There is a lot of garbage on talk radio (Air America and Michael Savage come to mind) and there is nothing in this quote to suggest he was referring to Limbaugh, Hannity (who frankly does suck), or Hewitt.  That was simply you trying to put words in his mouth.

Well, since he has criticized Limbaugh by name on more than one occasion in the past, it is safe to say he is in that list.

Apparantly the next wave of McCain's "election reform" will be to get rid of primaries.  That way, he can get elected by democrats and independents without the base.

Or maybe he's just clueless.

Forget the Presidency, I'd be surprised if he wins another term in the Senate.

But there is a potential for a gain if McCain wins the nomination.  Once you get into a general Presidential election, he could probably do very well among moderates and independents.

If he pulls it off, it's brilliant.  If he loses the nomination, it's a mistake.