Mariners ballplayers are reporting in Arizona to prepare for the upcoming baseball season. Maybe as a sign of reciprocity the Grand Canyon State has sent Sen. John McCain north to curry favor in Seattle for his expected presidential run.
For most Americans it's way too early to talk about hiring a new Commander-in-Chief. Crabs are still picking at the corpse of the Republican congressional majority washed up onto the beach like so much driftwood after the Democrats' victorious Blue Wave in November. The number of embarrassing gaffes committed by first-time Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is still in the single digits. President Bush hasn't even gotten to veto the minimum wage increase yet.
The primaries are still more than a year off but that hasn't stopped some GOP early birds from jumping on board the "Straight-talk Express". Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna has got his boarding papers supporting McCain's presidential run.
McCain spoke before a crowd of around 500 at the Westin Hotel in Seattle, Friday afternoon, for an event sponsored by the World Affairs Council. In attendance were most of the state's Republican aristocracy. In addition to McKenna, Congressman Dave Reichert, Secretary of State Sam Reed and County Councilmember Reagan Dunn were seen. Newly elected State chair Luke Esser was on hand as well. Former Secretary of State Ralph Munro sponsored two tables for the luncheon.
In the 2000 presidential primary prognosticators had diagnosed Washington as a hotbed of "McCainia". Although the symptoms passed McCain no doubt has the thermometer out to test whether the symptoms will still in evidence for 2008. He is the first official presidential candidate to plumb the depths of Washington state support.
Winning a presidential primary and earning the trust of the Republican grassroots and donors will be daunting task for the 70-year old. Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney are also early front-runners. Newt Gingrich will possibly siphon away conservative support if the former Speaker of the House decides to join the race.
As a decorated fighter-bomber pilot for the United States Navy, McCain's main mission was to destroy enemy infrastructure in North Vietnam. Someone must not have told him that 'Nam is over because the "maverick" senator has been accused of continuing to burn bridges during his political career. Many of the grassroots in the party feel he has been too cozy with Democrats and the mainstream media selling out by selling out principles in order in order to gain good press. Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh frequently airs parodies likening the naval aviator to Captain Queeg in the "McCain" Mutiny.
The media honeymoon for the "Maverick" might be over with reporters tasking him over courting the so-called Religious Right. During an informal press scrum after the speech, a self-important KOMO TV reporter phlegmily accused McCain of getting too cozy with the church-going crowd.
McCain responded to these critiques by saying Republicans needed to be a "Big Tent" party which needed to return to the principles of Ronald Reagan. His speech was smattered with Reagan-isms including the closing remarks, "America is still a shining city on a hill and our best days are in front of us." He twice invoked the memory of Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Washington's legendary Democrat senator as well as the limited government mantra of Barry Goldwater, his political mentor.
Much of his speech was a non-descript affair centered on economic trade with Asia. McCain dropped hints though about his views on many of the issues voters will be confronting in 2008.
It was curious to note that WAC president Ian Moncaster, in his introduction of McCain, chose to begin his remarks with a remark about Haitian immigrants. The senator has been accused by many conservatives as being soft on illegals dubbing him "McAmnesty".
McCain said that he doesn't believe in amnesty but insists the U.S. should have a "comprehensive plan for the issue". He complimented Mexican President Felipe Calderon on his assistance with immigration.
Other Issues:
Education: Spoke in favor of charter schools saying that K-12 education would improve with added competition. Said that good teachers ought to be rewarded but based on merit. Applauds No Child Left Behind and supports renewal of the federal program.
Agriculture: Was asked about farm subsidies, specifically sugar and cotton, but did not address the issue specifically in his answer. The issue of subsidies is often a sticky one for politicians what with the importance of Iowa caucuses.
2006 Election: Said his party lost the majority in Congress not because of the war in Iraq because Republicans had abandoned the principles of limited government and lesser spending. He blamed this on a culture of corruption in "The City of Satan". He vowed to veto the first spending bill with an earmark.
China: Warned about the Asian superpower's development of submarines, jet fighters, modernization of its nuclear missile inventory as well as its development of anti-satellite weaponry. He also criticized the communist regime for partnering with terror regimes such as Iran. McCain balanced his remarks by repeating that United States and China need to be partners and not adversaries.
Taiwan: "[We] need to make clear to China that attempts to isolate Taiwan economically or militarily are unwise."
North Korea: Blamed the Clinton administration for its failures in halting Kim Jon-il's nuclear ambitions. Any new agreements must ensure full denuclearization and proper accounting for nuclear materials. He called on North Korea to cease its support of terrorism and its abduction of Japanese citizens.
That right there's the biggest reason he'll never get support from the conservative wing.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on February 24, 2007 07:32 AMAfter the speech, McCain was asked by an audience member if he was "sucking up to the religious right." He drew laughs by responding:
"What's wrong with sucking up to everybody?"
Now if that does not sum McCain up I do not know what will. Here is the link to the article:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/23/D8NFQ4K00.html
Everyone has an opinion on M-F political speech meddling (and it's not good in the base McCain presumably wants to count on).
But don't forget the devil's bargain McCain forced on Republican leadership: he traded getting two conservative replacements for two typically identified consevative vacanciies (note no real gain) for screwing every other judicial appointment for the balance of Bush's term and on into the future. It was a complete sellout. As much physical courage as he's proven to have he is a political wimp regarding anything of principle - the Dems played hardball and he forced the Repub's to cave for his personal gain.
It's my conclusion that he's not up to leading the party or the nation - how can you lead and expect loyalty if you don't exhibit it yourself?
My biggest concern here is McKenna. He has some serious explaining to do. If this is Rob's favorite Pres. Candidate and is so convinced that he declares this early - then I wonder about his political leadership. Rob is a great politician - he's successful in a Dem state - but as he seeks to climb the political ladder he has to show he is a political leader.
Posted by: Stan on February 24, 2007 09:31 AMEveryone has an opinion on M-F political speech meddling (and it's not good in the base McCain presumably wants to count on).
But don't forget the devil's bargain McCain forced on Republican leadership: he traded getting two conservative replacements for two typically identified consevative vacanciies (note no real gain) for screwing every other judicial appointment for the balance of Bush's term and on into the future. It was a complete sellout. As much physical courage as he's proven to have he is a political wimp regarding anything of principle - the Dems played hardball and he forced the Repub's to cave for his personal gain.
It's my conclusion that he's not up to leading the party or the nation - how can you lead and expect loyalty if you don't exhibit it yourself?
My biggest concern here is McKenna. He has some serious explaining to do. If this is Rob's favorite Pres. Candidate and is so convinced that he declares this early - then I wonder about his political leadership. Rob is a great politician - he's successful in a Dem state - but as he seeks to climb the political ladder he has to show he is a political leader.
Posted by: Stan on February 24, 2007 09:32 AMEveryone has an opinion on M-F political speech meddling (and it's not good in the base McCain presumably wants to count on).
But don't forget the devil's bargain McCain forced on Republican leadership: he traded getting two conservative replacements for two typically identified consevative vacanciies (note no real gain) for screwing every other judicial appointment for the balance of Bush's term and on into the future. It was a complete sellout. As much physical courage as he's proven to have he is a political wimp regarding anything of principle - the Dems played hardball and he forced the Repub's to cave for his personal gain.
It's my conclusion that he's not up to leading the party or the nation - how can you lead and expect loyalty if you don't exhibit it yourself?
My biggest concern here is McKenna. He has some serious explaining to do. If this is Rob's favorite Pres. Candidate and is so convinced that he declares this early - then I wonder about his political leadership. Rob is a great politician - he's successful in a Dem state - but as he seeks to climb the political ladder he has to show he is a political leader.
Posted by: Stan on February 24, 2007 09:33 AMI remind you all the Democrats now have 51 votes in the Senate, and they will retake the presidency at some point int he future (far in future let's all hope). The temporary gians possible by implementing the nuclear option would prove to be minor compared to the costs of unfettered anti-constitution appointments.
McCain leads H. Clinton and Obama in Washington State. Calling McCain "unelectable" is profoundly stupid. Please also remeber that is a REPUBLICAN is leading top DEMOCRATS in Washington, that's very significant and shows substantial strength.
Posted by: Alex Hays on February 24, 2007 03:10 PMWhich one would appoint judges who think like him?
Which one would appoint judges based on what the polls tell him the people want the judges to think like?
And which one would appoint judges who think like the founding fathers did?
Posted by: Doug on February 24, 2007 03:59 PM
I strongly disagree with your belief. Republicans let the most activist judge, Ginsburg (Breyer too), sail through (96-3-1) when they had control of the Senate. To think that they will/would practice the extreme measures that the minority Dems have done is just wrong. The Repub philosophy is that appointments are the prerogative of the President (either party) except for clearly unqualified nominees. The Dems take an obstructionist position - by any means necessary. To the Dems the courts are just legislation by other means.
The "nuclear option" would not have changed the way nominees get nominated and approved - except that the minority Dems would not have had veto privileges with only 40 votes.
And what did you get for this, as a protector of the constitution? Basically two ideological replacements (like for like) on SCOTUS in exchange for a ton of blocked lower court appointees (the farm team for higher court nomination). These WILL be filled with "activist" judges if the Dems win POTUS. If another Repub wins then the Dems will continue their practice of blocking "strict constructionists". And McCain not only made it possible but he in effect endorsed it.
Posted by: Stan on February 24, 2007 04:51 PMI haven't yet made up my mind who I will support, but I think it is defeatist trashing any GOP candidate.
May be I should log into the left blogs and attack the Hilderbeast, Obama and Christine for not doing enough to trash our free market system and their insufficient increases in taxes. Then I can sign myself, Loyal democrat.
Thanks for your work, Alex!
I agree with you that previous Senate's should have shown more care and filtered out some nominees. This is not a good argument that we should eliminate or impare that filtering mechanism. Frankly it's a strong argument against YOUR position.
Your perception of what happened at the appeals and district court level is flatly wrong. Several solidly pro-constitution appointtees withdrew and were replaced with less controversial people --who had no less pro-constittuion records.
Posted by: Alex Hays on February 24, 2007 05:17 PM1) Re: the "filtering system" - the filibuster to deny an up or down vote - was never used, it was threatened once, against Abe Fortas and he was withdrawn - for non-philosophical reasons. It's not a constitutionally contemplated "filtering system" - it's a quirk of Senate rules, an extension of legislative process to the function of nominee approvals - hence it can be changed by the Senate.
2) Re: my logical argument - maybe you missed my point. The Repubs will not use that parliamentary trick - haven't ever, can't imagine they would. The Dems ARE using it (did use it), it would have just been a leveling of the playing field.
3) I have to apologize, I was not aware that the Repubs had actually run the table on the Dems re: judicial appointments. Could you tell me the good "pro-constitution" judges (and the controversial nominees they replaced) that got appointed after the "gang of 14 agreement" besides Roberts and Alito?
My quick research shows that since Alito (Nov. 05) 11 judges were confirmed (for comparison 33 were confirmed in 2005 not counting SCOTUS) of 41 nominated with an additional 20 vacancies without a nominee. 2006 was the Repubs last shot for awhile for obvious reasons. To me this does not represent a breaking of the logjam - so I'm looking to you for the good news that makes this all good.
Finally, I'm sorry to have to bad-mouth a Republican - I would obviously support McCain against a Democrat - but this guy is short on some team skills and that is important.
Thanks all...
Posted by: Stan on February 24, 2007 07:49 PMToo timid and wishy washy? I hate to have to hold my readers' hands on these things but perhaps you just skipped paragraph #4? I know it might be confusing because I wrote this as a straight news piece as opposed to an opinion but pay attention in class next time.
And I believe the correct answer to your querry would be that I'm neither. I use every word in my writing for a reason; not just to fill space. You'll notice that I said Republican "congressional majority". Although I'm flattered that you're yet another SP poster linking my name to elected office but no I'm not a congressman and no one has been picking at my remains.
As for being one of the Crab people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Crabpeoplesp.jpg), I can assure you that my allegience rests firmly with the sentient Sea Otters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1013ottersonostriches.JPG)
Ever notice that in addition to RINOS, Democrats also strongly support McCain as the Republican frontrunner? I wonder why? McCain has no chance. Not only is he misguided in his ideas, and not that popular compared to other Republicans, his Senate record is an extreme liability.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 25, 2007 08:13 AMMy nightmare scenario: Clinton vs. McCain.
Posted by: delbert on February 25, 2007 11:04 AMWhy is it that so many of the applicant's for the job of Commander-in-Chief chose not to serve in the military at an earlier time in their careers? Given the present state of world affairs, prior military experience, if not a prerequisite, is a definite plus. Further, it may confirm that the candidate is sincerely interersted in serving our country, rather than simply satisfying their own ambition. In any event, John McCain appears to be the only candidate who passes muster on this test.
Posted by: Tim on February 25, 2007 11:33 AMThis is the current U.S. military. But you're not supposed to ask. Or tell.
The goose, you see, is (falsely) listed as "endangered" and obviously honking at it would endanger it even more.
Three guesses who this regulation actually endangers.
No, Tim, I think having served in that particular bureaucracy, where politically correct idiocy gets rewarded with promotion, is not the best litmus test. The military should kill people and break things. As a matter of fact, you might say that's all government does well.
I think you made my point. If one desires to be the CEO of an organization, it is exteremely helpful if he or she understands the nature of the organization, including its culture. Prior service within that organization is the best avenue for gaining that knowledge. A litmus test? No, but a candidate who has served in the military, even for 3 or 4 years, will have a much better understanding of the organization of which he or she aspires to be the Commander-in-Chief, than one who has not served. As for the John Murtha analogy, I hadn't realized that he had announced his candidacy. In all seriousness though you make a good point, and that is why I consider the lack of military service to be potentially disqualifying factor, rather than treating such service as a qualifying factor.
Posted by: Tim on February 25, 2007 01:14 PMI can see where you are trying to go with your CEO analysis, but I can tell you one thing from my time in the service that is same for the majority of people in the world. You have good leaders/CEO's and bad ones. So prior experience does not always favor one person over another. I fell that if I were hiring/voting for someone to run my company/country I would rather take this persons past accomplishments, or lack their of, as a measure of where they would take the company/country instead of determining who gets the job based on just past jobs they have held. McCain has showed us his accomplishments (McCain/Feingold, McAmnesty/Kennedy, McCain/Liebermann and of course the gang of 14). When I compare his accomplishments to say Rudy (reduced crime in NYC drastically, improved the economy of NYC drastically and his leadership in the wake of 9/11) and Romney (Increased revenue for the state of Mass without increasing taxes or debt and streamlined the government of Mass while dealing with a Democrat controlled legislature, took the SLC Olympics made it profitable, has created and ran multiple companies successfully)I would have to say that both Rudy and Romney have shown me greater accomplishments than McCain has.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on February 25, 2007 02:12 PMI agree that we want the best person for the job, but I am concerned that many of those presently running are representitative of the ever increasing segment of our society that beleives that military service is our responsibility, not theirs. Its early yet, but Rudy, Romney and the others will inevitably be called upon to explain how and why they avoided military service. Hillary will be the only one to get a free pass on this issue.
Posted by: Tim on February 25, 2007 03:08 PMMcCain coming to Washington early is no coincidence. There are clear advantages for him in this state -- though not with the "religious right" that he was supposedly here courting.
Look at all the retired military folks out here, then add to that all of the active duty guys, and you should begin to see the picture. Washington, though a very blue pond, has some important demographics that interest McCain.
Our local media was happy to gobble up the national story lines that are shaping McCain's candidacy: 1) he's courting the religious right, and 2) he's OLD.
First, if McCain was truly courting the religious right, do you REALLY think he'd be coming to SEATTLE--the "unchurched PNW" to do it?
Second, though he might be aging, McCain is clearly still a very sharp and active guy. Reagan took a of heat for being "too old" as well -- but that didn't keep him from being an energetic executive, now did it? Besides, isn't 70 the new 50 anyways?
Posted by: Patrick on February 25, 2007 06:28 PMLet's compare. Suppose I'm trying to hire a CEO for McDonald's Corporation. McDonalds is big and can afford to hire anyone they want. The only question is who will be the best for the job. Someone suggests to you that you shouldn't consider anyone who hasn't actually worked in a McDonald's restaurant. "They are the ones on the front line," he says, "they have to deal with the real hassles, the mess, the heat, the abusive customers. They are the real heroes. You can't be the CEO of a billion dollar corporation unless you've at least spent some time saying 'Would you like fries with that?'" or dealing with the grease that spatters off a hot grill."
You, of course, in your wisdom, would point out that however compelling is the plight of the burger jockey, it has almost nothiing to do with the skills needed to be a major, international CEO. There are hundreds of thousands of former McDonald's employees, you say, but they don't include many of the top ten executives in America. You are polite, and try not to offend his pride, because he, himself was a restaurant employee and endured the heroic drudgery under the golden arches, but you gently guide him to see that his litmus test is not helpful and almost completely inapplicable.
You are so wise.