McCain just got through giving one heck of a speech at CPAC.
The one thing I've always appreciated with the man is that he is straight-forward and honest. You might not agree with him but damn-it you know where he will stand after he gives his word on something.
It is refreshing to have a politician who means what he says and won't pander to the nearest constituency group just to pad his poll numbers.
McCain did not come to CPAC groveling. He didn't back-peddle and apologize and try to weasel out of feuds he's had with conservatives.
He said straight up that some conservatives have had disagreements with him. But if conservatives can't come together to agree to fight on larger issues then, well, thanks for the time.
Some of the bigger issues he mentioned were national security, SCOTUS judicial appointments, reducing government spending, Second Amendment, vetoing earmarks, thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions, winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, cutting taxes and making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
I'm sure my other SP contributors, along with myself, are clacking away at the keyboards putting our thoughts in order about this.
We've been inundated on the comment threads with "Hatesis the McCain Forevers!!!" comments. This isn't particularly useful and can be continued below so I'm declaring that off limits with this thread and want some rational discussion about whether McCain sealed the deal and how he can build momentum for November.
Posted by DonWard at February 07, 2008 12:48 PM | Email ThisI'll let the wordsmiths figure out if he left any wiggle room in his statements. Without an analysis, I'll stick with Don's analysis- he said what he said and meant what he said.
Don should remember this old joke:
Question: How can you tell if a politician is lying?
Answer: His lips are moving.
It was a good start.
Posted by: swatter on February 7, 2008 01:27 PMIowa:
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/mccain-makes-final-appeal-to-iowa-voters-2008-01-03.html
Michigan:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080114/POLITICS/801140415
Florida
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper/2008/01/27/0127mccain.html
I do wish he'd take a stand against the so-called stimulus package, because it just adds to the bill our children, grand children and great grandchildren are getting stuck with.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on February 7, 2008 01:40 PMThat's it!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Norm on February 7, 2008 01:55 PMPeople who disagree with the Maverick's loose cannon politics are 'irrational' 'Haters'?
McVain is always "straight-forward and honest"? He doesn't "weasel" nor "pander"?! Bwaaa haaa haaa ha...
Give me a break; Juan McCain is anything but a "mainstream Conservative". Notice that he still won't come clean about how he was last year spearheading comprehensive Shamnesty. And he still refuses to denounce the principles of amnesty under which he remains entranced.
Conservatives are not going to buy this transparent dog-and-pony show. He has yet to PROVE that he has learned anything. He has yet to SHOW that he will not sell out the party to the Liberals at nearly every chance.
WHO is going to stop McCain from continuously "reaching across the aisle" (bending over) to Liberals?? It won't be Republicans. How about a Demoncat Congress?? Who, then?
I won't get my hands bloody by voting for this untrustworthy clown who thinks the world revolves around his own twisted sense of his personal "honor".
With Obama, at least you know what your're going to get. Observe how Bush, leading his "Republican" party, achieved multiple times a more liberal agenda than Bill Clinton ever dreamed of. But, WHY is that so?
Posted by: ThoughtRogue on February 7, 2008 01:57 PMMITT ROMNEY CPAC SPEECH, 2/7/08
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/romneys_withdrawal_speech.html
JOHN McCAIN CPAC SPEECH, 2/7/08http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/john_mccains_cpac_speech.html
Posted by: Steve Beren on February 7, 2008 02:08 PMYou know, just because a man doesn't believe in the same things you believe doesn't make him dishonest or a liar. McCain is still standing by all the issues that he is being crucified by "conservatives" over.
If McCain were dishonest, he would pull a Romney and pander to the Conservative base on immigration, or McCain-Feingold, global warming or whatever negatives you care to throw at him.
It would be easier to do so now wouldn't it?
Instead McCain is standing on his principles (which might not your principles) and doing what he feels is right.
Sounds like someone being honest, brutally honest, to me.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 7, 2008 02:10 PMWhy is it outside of the realm of possibility that McCain did the same on immigration?
It's not out of the realm, but on Meet the Press he kept saying that he would secure the borders first because the American people have made it clear that that is what we want. He did not say "I will secure the borders because I believe it is the right thing to do." If he changed his mind in the last couple of weeks, it's news to me.
Posted by: NW Denizen on February 7, 2008 02:33 PMAre you joking? Or were you just smoking crack?
straight-forward ??
honest?
Really Don, how old are you? Go google KEATING5.
Posted by: pbj on February 7, 2008 02:51 PMThe fact is that he's pro amnesty. Be it after real border security or before is splitting hairs. They are separable matters. One can have both border security and no amnesty, they aren't related.
Posted by: Cecil on February 7, 2008 02:56 PMA speech he HAD to give doesn't instantaneously heal two decades of bruises he's inflicted on the party. As a long-ago Reagan D.C. staffer, I don't need McCain's co-dependent affirmation and promises that this time he'll shape up and not hit me anymore.
Bob Dole, party of one...your table is ready.
Sam
Posted by: samuel huntington on February 7, 2008 02:58 PMNot me, man. I am too busy doing actual work, like preparing for the caucus ... maybe I'll care about conversations about McCain in a month or so after things have died down. :-)
Posted by: pudge on February 7, 2008 03:03 PMHe didn't even try to "seal the deal". He basically flipped us the bird.
How can he "build momentum"? Well if instead of wsting time with a constituency he despises, I suggest he attend the Democrat areas. They are his natural constituents. And with Democrat lieberman in tow, he ought to get a few extra points too.
Posted by: pbj on February 7, 2008 03:03 PMWhen you say "You might not agree with him", you're
right. I don't. So why vote for him? Obama says all kinds of things I don't agree with him on and that is also why I'm not voting for him.
I am not inspired.
Posted by: Gary on February 7, 2008 03:06 PMI am sorry you are either so young or naive to see what is happening. 4 months or so from now, you will see the same MSM that ushered McCain into the GOP nomination, pummel him on all his baggage. Like a fly lured into the black widow web, the party has buzzed into the sweet smell of nectar. The widow is awake and it is only a matter of time before she strikes. As John Kerry learned, no amount of war hero reminiscing will keep all the skeletons in the closet.
But celeberate all you want now. 40 years from now, perhaps we will have another Republican in the white house.
Posted by: pbj on February 7, 2008 03:08 PMThe strengths I listed are the single most important reason why the plurality of Republicans taking part in these elections like the man.
A week ago I wouldn't have said this: He's the guy. I will line up behind McCain and give him my support. Bonus play: I know of Democrats that prefer him over Hillary or Obama.
Let's roll.
McCain is our nominee. Time to end the primary stuff, now.
Here's how McCain can really give the d's a run for their money: Name a VP pick NOW. Spend the rest of the primary season campagining for President by raising money and blasting away at Hillary! and Obama. Dollars for donuts both of those two are going to shift gears and start shooting at Sen. McCain soon.
By doing this now, McCain can get his views out there more or less unchallenged as the dems fight out their contested convention. Also, he can focus on raising some serious cash; he'll need it in the general if he's going to compete with Barack or Hillary!.
Don't anybody fool yourselves that Hillary! is out of money right now. If she makes the general the dems will make sure she's flush with cash.
Attention Mike Huckabee: You're a cool guy and all, but it's your turn to take one for the team.
Posted by: Steve in Queen Anne on February 7, 2008 03:29 PMRagnar, are you implying that Reagan was a flip-flopper in the same boat as Kerry and Romney?
How dare you!!
Kerry was a lying fool. Nothing more!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 7, 2008 04:20 PMBut come on Don. You know darn well the MSN won't wait to long before they come after McCain.
Their love affair with him will end soon and then watch out!
Oh, I'm pretty sure the media is loaded for bear with McCain. So does that make him a bad guy then or a good guy?
Boy it's tough to grin through the tears.
But I will give credit to McCain's strong points as an adversary in the primary season. Which is easy for me to do because I'm still working under the delusion that my candidate (who's still running by the way) can win.
Get back to me after Huckabee concedes.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 7, 2008 04:58 PMWe need to not just think about "who can beat Hillary?" but "Who can beat Obama?" In all truth, McCain is old and doesn't appeal well to the younger masses, even if he appeals to some independents. Obama appeals to probably more independents than McCain, AND he's young and he talks about nothing other than "hope" and "change", which, for young foks, is for some ridiculous reason a huge draw. If McCain is the GOP nominee and Obama the Dem nominee, we're going to see Dole '96 ALL OVER AGAIN.
NO THANK YOU.
Posted by: Cydney on February 7, 2008 05:53 PMAs long as he sticks with that notion, he has a near vertical climb into the White House. Just ask 90% of the country.
He is so ravenous to become prez that we will watch him come up with a more tasty timeline.
Maybe even produce some kind of fancy flip-flop that doesn't look like a flip-flop.
I think we'll see that we only know where he "stood" on this one.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on February 7, 2008 06:21 PMTHe introduction by Bob Barr was great too. When he was unsure how to vote he relied on looking up at the board and seeing how Dr Paul voted. He would then know the right way to vote.
Posted by: Lysander on February 7, 2008 07:42 PMThe same is true of George W. Bush.
Posted by: Bruce on February 7, 2008 07:57 PMThe more conservative are, well, more conservative when it comes to the early part of the game. But there are a few who are OUT THERE on the GOP side of the aisle. And boy are they out in force.
To claim that McCain isn't a conservative is about as silly as the left claiming that National Public Radio and the three network news teams aren't liberal.
I'm not wild about McCain, I was hoping for Rudy. (Sorry Rudy, but you needed to do the retail politicking in New Hampshire to keep your face in the race, even if it would have been unpleasant.) But I can live with him. Much more easily than with either of the other two.
But too many of the posts in this thread are showing the nasty side of Sound Politics. This is almost as bad as the threads that were hijacked by the Paulzis. (Thank god they have largely gone away!). Makes me feel like I am in the mirror, mirror universe from Star Trek. Or visiting Horse's Ass.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on February 7, 2008 08:03 PMPosted by: Giffy on February 7, 2008 08:30 PM
I see the alternatives to McCain and do not see myself any further from them than I am McCain.
Take gun control for example.
McCain has recieved an F rating from the GOA for the last 4 years. http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm
Take immigration... He teamed up with Ted Kenndedy!!!
Or free speech... He coauthored the worst attack on political speech since the seditions act!
Or taxes... he is against cuts.
Or spending... Overall he is proposing far more increases than decreases. (6 billion increase compared to Pauls proposed 150 billion decrease) http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=991&org_name=NTUF
Posted by: Lysander on February 7, 2008 09:19 PM" You know, just because a man doesn't believe in the same things you believe doesn't make him dishonest or a liar. "
No, it doesn't. But when John McCain says he is a Conservative, a Ronald Reagan Conservative at that, and says he holds true to the political philosophy of Ronald Reagan, he is.
McCain is a Reagan conservative, he's just not a Newt Gingrich conservative.
Posted by: Doug on February 7, 2008 10:18 PMAlso, I thought he did an excellent job of laying out the very substantial differences between himself and the eventual Democratic nominee, whomever it may be. All in all, I think Senator McCain's speech yesterday was a good first step towards repairing his relationship with his party's right wing. However, he needs to make sure that he doesn't go too far in trying to appease them lest he lose some of his appeal to moderate Republicans like me as well as the independent voters that he will need to win over in order to prevail in November.
Posted by: Dan R. on February 8, 2008 07:30 AMAs for some of the other criticisms we keep reading here:
Borders/immigration
He is not for open borders, and he has backed off the amnesty after the public outcry last year.
His quote today to CPAC:
[I] have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a wa y that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.
Global warming
He does want to protect the environment. And that position *is* conservative. The difference is that he wants market solutions, like making it easier for nuclear plants to be built, not carbon taxes.
Gang of 14.
This was responsible for Alito and Roberts getting confirmed.
McCain Feingold.
I get the free speech argument here. But has this eliminated the money that flows into politics? Not a bit.
McCain Kennedy.
This legislation is not all bad - it actually established standards. If you can't measure a school's performance, how are you going to improve it? He also believes in school choice and teacher pay for performance.
Snubbing his own party
Conservatives in his own party snubbed him when they went on rampant spending sprees, leading to huge budget deficits that we have now. He's against crop subsidies, against socialized healthcare, was against the Medicare prescription drug benefit (that so-called conservatives voted for), and for second amendment rights, just to name a few.
He's the best candidate on either side on economic and fiscal issues, and on fighting terrorism. Period.
Posted by: Palouse on February 8, 2008 08:22 AMThe same is true of George W. Bush. Posted by Bruce at February 7, 2008 07:57 PM
Ahem, can we say CLINTON?
I simply don't understand you cannibals eating yor own when there are some fat, juicy democraps over there on the left to happily roast, broil, boil and munch on.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 8, 2008 08:59 AMIt is true what Kartar says @ 41.
I know I said I would not vote for McCain. It really hurts to do so, but I think I will have to 'man up' and do it. I still don't trust him, but I can't let Hillary or Obama give the Democrats all of the power. I fear that they will do things that make it impossible to wrest power away from them again. I don't envision a 30 year fall from power for the Republicans I see a permanent fall.
God help us if McCain loses, and I fear he will.
Posted by: REBEL on February 8, 2008 09:05 AMIt is not too late. Continue to support Paul (or Huckabee) and we can still get a brokered convention. Do not give up like Romney!
Posted by: Lysander on February 8, 2008 12:03 PMWas it really? Were it not for the Gang of 14, the Republicans could have voted for a rule to the effect of:
"Because the 'advice and consent' of the Senate on Presidential appointments is an explicitly mandated duty in the Constitution, it shall given such precedence over non-mandated duties as to ensure its completion in timely fashion. Fourteen days after the President requests that a confirmation be expedited, the Senate shall neither consider any other business, nor recess, until the confirmation is approved or denied. If any Senator holds the floor for over an hour in discussing the nomination, a majority in the Senate may cut him off with a five-minute warning."
Were it not for the Gang of 14, why would such a measure not have secured the confirmations not only of Roberts and Alito, but also the dozens of other judicial appointments that are still pending?
Posted by: supercat on February 8, 2008 03:50 PM