One day, two great thinkers. First, news of '08 GOP presidential contender John McCain, speechifying to conservatives yesterday:
"We were elected to reduce the size of government and enlarge the sphere of free and private initiative. We increased the size of government in the false hope that we could bribe the public into keeping us in office. We lost our principles and our majority, and there is no way to recover our majority without recovering our principles first."...McCain invoked President Theodore Roosevelt in calling on Republicans to take the lead in reforming spending and lobbying practices in the capital. He attacked pork-barrel spending, corporate welfare, earmarking in appropriations bills and dishonest budgeting techniques. On lobbying, he said, "Let's ban all gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers and keep lobbyists off the floors of the House and Senate."
Many Sound Politics commenters are McCain-averse due in part to the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation felt by many critics to have both restricted legitimate political speech; and boosted corrosive negative ads by shadowy third-party "527" committees. But putting that aside momentarily, I'd be interested in whether they think McCain's prescription yesterday for the party is a winning one.
Meanwhile, Michael Moore lays down a marker for the Democratic majority in today's L.A. Times; something we've got to be happy about.
Moore promises victorious Democrats won't focus on revenge. Instead, he says they'll:
encourage dissent;
balance the budget;
not send troops to war based on Powerpoint presentations by Chickenhawks;
deliver universal health care so impecunious conservatives can get medical treatment;
clean up the air and water;
catch Osama bin Laden;
take away your handguns because you don't need them to shoot a bird or deer;
raise the minimum wage;
and "discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism, starting here at home."
Michael, DO make sure to always - always - share with EVERYONE just exactly whatever is that's on your busy, busy mind. Amigo. And please do more and more sharing as '08 draws nearer. In fact, that's the only thing missing from your promise list.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at November 17, 2006 10:36 AM | Email ThisAs far as Moore - encourage dissent. What a joke. It must be so that he can make yet another insulting film.
He must really be upset with Clinton too, after all he went to England to not inhale to avoid service. No complaints about him sending troops to fight. (Maybe hypocracy could be a good subject for his next film, but I stray). But we had French approval then, along with Europe. Europe wants to be taken seriously, but any time a serious situation comes up (war) they cry to the US. Couldn't they handle it alone, after all it was only one puny little country and its dicatator.
Posted by: Right said Fred on November 17, 2006 10:46 AMThis is all too common with good bills in Congress and real reform has to address the impact of special interests and particularly lobbyists in the back rooms of congress as bills are debated and amended.
I don't believe that the Dems have any particular interest in cleaning up the process. They and their interests will now try and recoup 12 years of lost pork.
Now then is good time for the Republicans to work seriously on this problem, before they are once again in power and the temptations from the special interests once again become too great.
In my mind, the Republican Party has once last chance. McCain might be a good standard bearer, but others can do the Job too. What they can't do again is abondon or try to buy the middle again.
Posted by: deadwood on November 17, 2006 10:50 AMThe only way I support him for Prez is if he's running against satan er, Hillary. If he runs against Vilsack or Huckabee I'll send *them* money.
As for Moore, he started lying right off the bat with his "we won't call you names" stuff.
Posted by: Steve (was Steve_Dog) on November 17, 2006 11:06 AMFor example, does anyone really think that blocking the prescription drug benefit would have been a winning move? Does anyone think that opposing the minimum wage is a good idea politically?
And pork? Face it, most people define pork as "money spent by politicians to buy votes in districts where I don't live." Pork-barrel politics works. That's why it's done.
Sure, people say they hate big government in general, but there sure is an awful lot of big government they like specifically.
Most of the procedural reforms probably wouldn't hurt politically, but I'm not sure how much they'll help, either, whether in political terms or policy terms. We've been adding layer upon layer of ethics regulations for 30 years, but these ethics regulations will finally solve the problem? Forgive me for doubting it.
And I certainly don't want to ban earmarks. All an earmark is, is a requirement that money be spent in a specific way, rather than simply writing a blank check to an executive branch agency. Although there is plenty of room for reforming earmark procedure, Congress must always have the power to say how taxpayer money is to be spent.
Of course, all McCain wants is some boob bait which he can stamp his name on and wave around in 2008.
I skipped the part about Michael Moore on the grounds that I don't care.
Posted by: ScottM on November 17, 2006 11:10 AMMcCain is just full of hot air. He is a politician who feeds off the polls and doesn't have the capability to be an executive that has to make the tough decisions. He is one of the most powerful Senators and has been there 20 years just shooting his trap off, complaining about this and that for his political benefit but not risking any capital to do anything about it.
If McCain truly wanted effective entitlement reform he could have done it years ago, but he's not willing to tackle it, just like all the others on Capitol Hill. He can talk the talk but can't walk the walk.
What congress needs is a bunch of business executives in there who care less about being elected...Just get the job done. And that is what the Presidency is all about, McCain doesn't have it. If the republicans pick a moderate they'll go with Rudy.
McCain as a senior (in more ways than one) Senator actually has the ability to get stuff done.
Populist Loudmouth vs. Popular Senator = Apples vs. Oranges
Posted by: Cato on November 17, 2006 11:20 AMScottM - I take the term earmark to be the sneak in the allocation AFTER the bill has been voted on after session in the "smoke filled room" and WITHOUT the author's name attached. Money specifically allocated for a specific purpose is good for the reasons you said - but these should be in the open for any debate by the whole chamber.
Posted by: Right said Fred on November 17, 2006 11:20 AMMcCain is something that Bush is not, which is a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE and a deficit hawk. That alone is enough for me to vote for him. He is also strong on national defense and the war on terror. Good enough for me.
Posted by: Palouse on November 17, 2006 11:38 AMI personally admire McCain's lifetime of service and courage, but I can't say I trust him. He's as ambitious as they come, and it's hard to listen to a man condemn activist judges when he joined forces with a cadre of like-minded Senators who reserved the right to filibuster precisely the same conservative judges that McCain is now promoting. (I know, I know. McCain's leadership saved Alito, Roberts and Janice Brown by taking the filibuster off the table for them. But the nuclear option would have done the same thing. And the GOP had the votes to end the D's judicial filibusters.)
So there you have it: Common sense conservatism isn't a vision for leadership. It's a sop to the base.
Posted by: DJ on November 17, 2006 12:04 PMI am so heartily sick and tired of "settling" for whichever candidate is "better than Hillary". I desperately want a candidate, like Ronald Reagan, who gives me a reason to vote for them instead of just being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. If McCain is the nominee in 2008, I will, for the first time in my life, sit out the Presidental election rather than cast a vote for a corrupt, power hunger snake (which describes both Hillary AND the senior Senator from Arizona)! I was hoping that the Rs had gotten the message on November 7th but I see they have just chosen Boehner and Blunt to lead the Minority in the House and sent Trent Lott back into leadership in Senate. Obviously, this is the definition of insanity in living color! The only politican who would get my support for President at this time in Mark Sanford of South Carolina but he says that he's not running. Oh well, in the words of Bob Seger, "Time to lock and load, Time to take control...start again..."
Posted by: suzihomemaker on November 17, 2006 01:19 PMSo electing the Rs has given us No Child Left Behind (let's play nice with Teddy Kennedy instead of demanding actual NEA busting education reform), The Medicare Drug Boondoggle (let's bankrupt the kids to buy votes from seniors), Billions of dollars in earmarks (Bridge to nowhere-Hello!). It has also produced NO meaningful action on simplifying the Federal Tax Code, no plan to fix Social Security, Medicare, etc. and a bunch of grandstanding and pandering on immigration which will now end up in an amnesty package as both parties try to suck up to the Hispanic voters. I will NOT vote for John McCain just to keep Hillary out of office! The Republican party has been treating conservative, Libertarian voters with the same disrespect and disdain that the Democrats treat blacks because they figure that we won't learn and we'll be too afraid to talk back to the Master! Well, I'm sick of it and we need enough people to stand up and say "Enough!" so that we can get our country back. Until then.....
Posted by: Suzihomemaker on November 17, 2006 01:53 PMCan't resist commenting on just a few of MM's ''talking points'':
> catch Osama bin Laden;
By offering to meet that ruthless murderer of 1000s of our fellow-citizens in a neutral country and earnestly working to reach a ''consensus'', no doubt.
> take away your handguns because you don't
> need them to shoot a bird or deer;
Let's see how well that goes over with people like newly elected conservative Montana (D) Senator John Testor, who is a strong 2nd Amendment guy.
SIDEBAR: The crime statistics in Australia are very interesting and clear-cut; after their government effectively confiscated most private handguns.
> and ''discourage religious intolerance and
> fanaticism, starting here at home.''
I have an idea: Let's send MM to Saudi Arabia and Iran instead, and let him start there.
Now: On Sen. McCain:
First Matt's direct ?:
Is McCain's prescription yesterday for the party a winning one:
Yes; although I would say it is more properly described as a major PART of a winning prescription, not all of it.
On McCain-Feingold:
I have big problems with the way it finally turned out (especially the continued exception for big labor), but I'm also with deadwood; i.e.:
The general and theoretical objective of what McCain-Feingold started with wasn't actually a completely bad idea, but what finally fell out of the legislative sausage grinder was NOT the right solution to a valid concern.
On what ex-Steve_Dog said WRT McCain versus which (D) in 2008:
''If he runs against Vilsack or Huckabee ...''
Neither Vilsack or Huckabee has any real shot at ending up as the (D) nominee.
On Vilsack see especially comments by Iowa political columnist David Yepsen at:
http://www.ovaloffice2008.com/
''Polls show the governor runs badly in his own home state. ... , and he gets only 3 percent among likely Democratic primary voters in NH''
On Huckabee... ANOTHER Ark. Gov ??... nah...
Plus both Vilsack and Huckabee are and will continue to be HOPELESSLY behind in fund-raising.
And I'm with ScottM and RightSaidFred on earmarks:
I don't want to ban them outright; it's the outrageous middle-of-the-night, last-minute earmark PROCESS that is totally out of control. Congress must indeed retain the power to say how taxpayer money is to be spent.
Palouse said:
''Either McCain or Rudy are far better choices than Hillary or Obama.'', and (McCain) ''is also strong on national defense and the war on terror.''
I'll slice that a bit further:
McCain is on balance a significantly better choice than Rudy, and (trying to be objective): Obama would be a lot better for the county than Hillary... and McCain would be a whole lot better than Obama.
Then DJ:
''McCain's leadership saved Alito, Roberts and Janice Brown by taking the filibuster off the table for them. But the nuclear option would have done the same thing.''
2 points:
[1] Saving Alito, Roberts, and Brown was NOT a small thing: It was HUGE.
[2] If the worst happens in 2008, and (D)s retain control of Congress and elect a President (shudder), we may find ourselves feeling VERY lucky that (R)s did NOT exercise the nuclear option.
PBJ, where you said about McCain:
''... claiming we were too weak to pick lettue for $50/hr''
Come on: Be fair and give the whole context:
McCain said ''if you will pick lettice for the WHOLE SEASON I'll give you $50 an hour.''
I think on the whole he was correct:
Not many Americans are lining up to work in the fields thru an entire summer season in the Imperial Valley etcetera.
And he didn't say we needed ILLEGAL immigrants to do that.
My bottom line on 2008:
While granting that some REALLY strange things have happened in national political, short of some major self-destruct action ala Kerry the odds are IMO very high that 2 of these 6 people will be nominated, and 1 will be elected President:
Hillary, Obama, or Edwards for the (D)s.
McCain, Giuliani, or Romney for we (R)s.
In closing I'll try and start a take-off on another thread:
Who would be the best VP nominee for (R)s:
My top 2 choices in order are:
[1] Condi Rice.
[2] Mitt Romney.
and JDH:
(McCain) ''has always impressed me as a back stabbing two-faced viper who would dryshave you every chance he gets.''
Sen. McCain laid his life on the line for his country in Vietnam, and the fact that he is human and not perfect (like all of the rest of us) does not BEGIN to justify those totally over-the-top characterizations. Some of the comments about Sen. McCain are reaching the ''beneath contempt'' stage.
''Time to lock and load, Time to take control ...'', ''...so that we can get our country back.''
Palouse is absolutely right:
Yah: Helping elect Hillary or Edwards of Obama, that will REALLY get the county back on the right track. Maybe I'm getting cranky in my old age, but I have less and less patience for those who seem unable or unwilling to recognize obvious objective realities. I'm not much interested in ''making statements'' that don't have any real effect: I want to WIN. Politics is the art of the possible. People who say ''all or nothing'' are in most cases going to get nothing.
Conservative organizations rate McCain somewhere in the 80's (out of 100), as opposed to someone like Hillary who is a 9.
McCain has consistently voted for tax cuts, for military spending, for protecting gun rights, and for deficit reduction measures. Ken has it right, you vote for all or nothing and you will get nothing.
Posted by: Palouse on November 17, 2006 03:20 PMI voted for George Bush Sr. in 1992 because he was the conservative.
Heck, I voted for Gerald Ford, 'cause Reagan didn't get the nomination in '76 (but I proudly voted for Reagan in '80 and '84).
But I will NEVER vote for John McCain.
Even if Hillary is the Pres candidate and Nancy Pelosi is the VP, I will NEVER vote for John McCain.
I've had enough of softie Republicans. But I can't STAND that self-important prig, John McCain.
NEVER will I vote for him.
I can't imagine why the Republican leadership thinks "Hey, we lost in 2006 - let's put up Trent Lott and John McCain as the standard bearers! And Mel Martinez! Because, you know, it's simpler than just stamping an 'L' on our foreheads for LOSERS."
Posted by: steve miller on November 17, 2006 06:18 PMVoting Libertarian means never having to say you're sorry.
"Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian!" :)
i gave wider latitude to veterans and war heores. after all, they laid it on the line. but--like us--they are all human. so, no more free lunch. it;s all about behavior. back to basics.
the boring thing--tracking exact voting record. match votes to my causes/issues. watch his actual behavior. his character & comments in public. look at who he helped & hurt in votes.
yea, it's work, but they are literally running/micromanaging our lives with MY delegated powers.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 17, 2006 09:19 PMIf he ran vs. Shrillary, I could not vote for either of them. Therefore, I support either Rudy Guilliani or Mitt Romney in 2008.
Posted by: KS on November 17, 2006 11:00 PM
Why not? He's easily got one of the best records as far as spending issues goes in Congress in the past 25 years, bar none.
Disagree with his other positions all you want, but if you don't think McCain has a good record on spending issues, you just aren't paying attention.
His 'gang of 14' is one reason why the GOP couldn't get anything through the Senate the last couple of years.
Yah...you are misinformed here too. The 'Gang of 14' deal only had to do with Judges, and as a result, they went through quite easily.
The question is, will they go through at all now that the D's control the Senate.
Again, disagree with him all you want, but disagree with what his record actually is, not the rediculous picture the McCain haters try to paint as his record.
McCain's record is about as distorted as Liebermans. In their respective cases, their base sees them as FAR more liberal/conservative then they really are.
If he ran vs. Shrillary, I could not vote for either of them. Therefore, I support either Rudy Guilliani or Mitt Romney in 2008.
Did you vote for Bush? If so, your position is totally illogical, since he signed McCain/Feingold.
And Rudy Giuliani is a longtime, vocal supporter of McCain.
Anybody who would not vote for McCain if Hillary was on the verge of being CiC is a traitor to the conservative cause as far as I'm concerned.
If he ran vs. Shrillary, I could not vote for either of them. Therefore, I support either Rudy Guilliani or Mitt Romney in 2008.
Did you vote for Bush? If so, your position is totally illogical, since he signed McCain/Feingold.
And Rudy Giuliani is a longtime, vocal supporter of McCain/Feingold, so that's also totally illogical.
Anybody who would not vote for McCain if Hillary was on the verge of being CiC is a traitor to the conservative cause as far as I'm concerned.
Based on what? He's got the best record of pork fighting of anybody in Congress. He's certainly a lot more conservative then Bush in this regard.
His only principle is getting re-elected.
McCain hasn't had a serious election challenge since 1986. What makes you think that's his concern? It's not. He might have an ego, but re-election isn't his problem.
McCain-Feingold violated free speech.
That's arguably true, but did you vote against Bush? He signed it.
McCain's got no plan for Iraq either.
That's absolutely false. He's got more of a plan then Bush does. He's been calling for more troops for some time.
Frankly, since the appointment of Gates and the Baker commission, both of which have 'phased withdrawl' written all over them, I trust McCain more then I do Bush on Iraq.
I'm not a fan of McCain's record on taxes. I thought McCain/Feingold wasn't necessary and was needless govt. regulation. I think he's got a big ego too.
But his record is FAR better then a big chunk of the base thinks. He's excellent on spending and the WOT, and he's got 100% from right-to-life. And I think any fairminded conservative would agree that spending, WOT, and Judges are the most important issues in '08. McCain is good on all 3. He should be given fair consideration.
Just saying.
Posted by: Shaun on November 18, 2006 08:29 AMRudy is too socially liberal, but would be a better leader than Bush by a long shot ! However, I would prefer to see Mitt Romney be the nominee - he has conservative priniciples, even in a state like Taxachusetts. We will agree to disagree, but I will not sell out my country to vote for any sellouts R or D for President !
Posted by: KS on November 18, 2006 10:02 AM
Name me one issue that you disagree with McCain on, but agree with Rudy.
Posted by: Cliff on November 18, 2006 01:33 PM
You anti-McCainiacs people really, really need to stop saying things like this if you want any credibility at all. It's insulting to the intelligence of your listeners and demeaning to your own.
Polls show McCain ahead of Hillary in Massachusetts and Vermont. And frankly, if he's even close there, it won't be close nationwide.
Now, argue that's because he's a RINO or whatever you want, there are reasons to oppose McCain, but saying he's a bad general election candidate isn't one of them from any reasonable standpoint.
Oh, OK, so now it's not about McCain/Feingold, now it's about 'amnesty' and other domestic matters.
Putting aside the issue of if earned citizenship = amnesty (I don't think so), you say you'd vote for Rudy. Are you aware that Rudy's position is exactly the same as McCain's?
And what 'other domestic matters' are you speaking of?
Unless you are the ultimate mastubatory voter, you don't get to vote 'ME' for President. You get to elect someone else. The reasonable person would pick the person who's closest to their views and not expect them to be 'ME'.
McCain's 100% pro-life, great on the WOT, best record of anti-pork in the Senate, against socialized medicine, etc.
Hillary is the opposite on all these things.
Posted by: Cliff on November 18, 2006 01:42 PM
Hey, Cliff, read my post. Why do you think I am anti-McCain? All I said, and I stand by it, is that when the MSM turns on McCain (and they will) his run for president is over. Poof.
Again, just saying. Over.
What evidence would lead you to believe that this is the case? It's not like the media has been kind to GWB, yet he's managed to win. They won't be kind to any other nominee either, McCain or no McCain.
Perhaps you are suggesting we should just not run anybody because the media will just beat them up anyway?
But his position on Iraq and campaign finance reform, not to mention his Mary Poppins approach to serious subjects like political lobbying lead me to suspect that his judgment is unreliable.
I have no idea what he would be like as a President, and I would not vote for him.
As for MM, who cares?
Posted by: Tom Rekdal on November 18, 2006 06:19 PM
But his position on Iraq...
What do you think his position on Iraq is? Because unless you favor cut and run, he's probably the best person in the nation right now. He favors MORE troops and MORE breaking heads.
Frankly, with the appointment of Robert Gates, I trust him more on Iraq then Bush.
i may not get all that i like with a McCain-type, but i SURE know what i DONT inevitably want from the likes of Obamas and Billarys--more taxes, expanded international appeasement posture, self-jihad against our military, pandering to/expanding MORE victim classes in America, more lawsuits gone wild and congressional investigations as nauseum that deflect from the REAL job of running the country. no D for me. an ugly toad is a safer pet than a viper.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 20, 2006 10:26 AM