There's a lot of talk about 2008 Presidential hopefuls. One often hears the name John McCain, Republican Senator from AZ, bandied about as a potential candidate. Let's take a look at John McCain's chances.
First off, there's the old political axiom, Senators don't often get elected to the office of President because of their voting record and national visibility. That's certainly true in McCain's case. It's hard to imagine any presidential aspirant who's been more of a lightning rod in the news cycles of late.
Second, with respect to point one, John McCain has dominated mainstream media news cycles. The mainstream media is well aware of its power and influence. By keeping McCain's name in the news cycle, they reinforce the liability of negative associations to McCain's beliefs. And, there should always be a healthy skepticism of any candidate that is roundly lauded by the blantantly left-skewed mainstream media. If the media can engender enough support for McCain to muddy the Republican primary waters, all the better to buy time for a Democrat hopeful to emerge.
Third, look at John McCain's stances on a number of key issues near and dear to the American voter. Wow, where should we begin. McCain isn't just hammering nails in his coffin, he's using a air compressor and a top of the line nail gun to do so as efficiently as possible.
The big psychosis of McCain's past is the torture he had to endure in North Vietnam. Real torture. This has so colored McCain's views on our handling of enemy combatants that he is not capable of rationally assessing our intelligence gathering policies in the present.
One need only peruse the reporting of CIA testimony by ABC's Brian Ross to see the effectiveness of today's techniques that are an obvious and immediate value in preventing terror attacks. In every single case, mild deprivational and psychological scare tactics has broken our enemies and divulged key operational details. So what are today's horrific procedures that cause relapse for John McCain? Sleep deprivation, face slapping, loud music, simulated immersion in water, etc. The reality is that that most Americans consider these techniques as mild, not causing any permanent physical or psychological damage, and very effective. And yet, John McCain wishes to disrupt our use of these useful techniques.
McCain is against a constitutional amedment preventing gay marriage. A great stance for a Democrat, but hardly popular with the Republican base, or for that matter, most Americans. While most Americans do not agree with a consitutional amendment, they also don't agree with equating same sex and opposite sex marriage. Again, McCain in the lurch.
McCain on immigration: He's for amnesty to all illegals that are already on the ground in the US. While there's a lot to debate about how exactly we would logistically begin to enforce existing immigration laws and build physical security into our southern border, a flat open border policy of denial is again, not the popular approach with either the base, or Americans in general.
The list goes on. While John McCain has done a great job of distancing himself from the current Administration, he forgets that the current Administration won the Presidency twice and that Americans are more tuned to key issues mentioned above, especially those that aid us in deterring future terrorism in the US.
So if you are one of the deluded few that still believes John McCain has a chance in 2008, it's time to snap out of the mainstream media induced hypnosis and realize that McCain is irreparably tainted by his own past. Both the haunts in his own mind and his subsequent political actions.
Posted by JeffB. at September 21, 2006 10:45 AM | Email ThisAs a historical note: it's been almost 50 years (JFK) since a sitting Senator was elected President. Many have tried, many have failed. Sure, Nixon was a Senator, but then he was VP and out for a while. Truman and Johnson were Senators, but ascended through the VP. Nixon was the last former Senator to attain the White House, and he's been gone over thirty years.
Bush 43, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter were Governors. Ford was a congressman and ascended through the VP.
Historically, very few from Congess go straight from there to the White House. I don't know why, but it doesn't bode well for those currently in office looking in that direction.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 21, 2006 02:47 PMBTW - did you see McCain in Architectural Digest? The guy really knows how to develop a brand for himself across demographics.
Posted by: hi on September 22, 2006 10:48 AMAnd no, the GOP is not struggling with the issue, McCain, Warner and Lindsay are struggling with the issue. And there has never been an attempt to give anyone in power carte blanche. Read the Constitution, that's not possible. What the administration wants to do is much more than they need to do. None of the detained enemy combatants or their countries of origin have signed to the Geneva conventions or follow them to the letter. They have no respect for the Geneva Conventions or US Law and we have obligation to treat them with respect to either. We've gone out of our way to be accomodating and minimialist in our treatment of these detainees, and yet there are still those who call for more appeasment. What if that helps a terror plot succeed? Look up what the detainees of Abu Ghraib are saying now that it has returned to Iraqi control. They are begging for the US to come back because our treatment of them was quite humane.
Lastly, the point of this post was that McCain is not served by building a brand for himself across the demographic. If he loses the nomination, it will not matter, and that's where he is headed. If John McCain wants to build trust with folks like you, he should change his party affiliation.
I agree McCain is not fit for President. I agree for the some of the same reasons you cited- immigration, gay marriage, etc. I disagree on detentions and interrogations by the CIA. BTW- what is wrong with being anonymous on the web? I thought that was supposed to be a convenient aspect of the Internet.
"Can you cite widespread examples of average Americans being locked up by the CIA for four years and subjected to mild depravations as you describe?" Of course not. If they are secret, how would I know about them?
If they are enemy combatants, then yes, the CIA should be allowed to interrogate within the limitations of the Geneva Convention. But it's important that the CIA be able to prove they are enemy combatants before they interrogate. It would be a strategic error (and simply unfair) to detain and subject innocent bystanders to mild deprivational and psychological scare tactics. Such innocent bystanders would probably become major posterchildren for "US TORTURE" in Al Jazeera, etc and would likely convert to islamofacism out of vengeance.
Just because you don't define it as torture doesn't mean others can't spin it as torture to millions of murderous fanatics out for revenge.
We have to be above them and not sink to their level to win this.
Posted by: hi on September 22, 2006 01:47 PMThose entranced by Islamic hatred have demonstrated time and again that it's not any one thing that we do or don't do, it's our mere existence that incites them to violence. The problem is the cultural dissemination of hatred that is daily accepted practice in many of the Middle Eastern countries. Countries that are ruled more as Theocracies under Sharia than even as dictatorships. When people are willing to stone a 16 year old girl for adultery that was caused by rape, they are more than willing to be swayed and incited by anything not in their stricte and limited religious view of the world. Whether we torture or don't torture or one of our soldiers tortures someone outside of official policy and then gets sent to prison, really does not matter. Moreover, we saw the same level of hatred under Clinton and under the previous administrations. Islamic hatred has been growing mostly due to the growth of the Theocracies and their aid and funding of terror and the increase in communications infrastructure in Islamic countries. It's not our fault and I reject that argument summarily.
With the appesement you suggest, why stop there? I mean if we are going to back down on everything, treat enemy prisoners with Geneva respect, try them in courts, apologize for any and all inflammatory or remarks, or just when Muslims decide to get upset, etc. then why not just simply convert the US to Islam?
With our open and toletant culture that is ruled by law, we are always above an ideologoy of hatred no matter how it is interpreted that way by those who hate us. If we were not, then there would not be any difference between the US and our enemies, which is clearly not the case.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 22, 2006 03:26 PMThere's alot to like about him, and he is far from someone who is at home with the Democrats. If it comes down to him and Hillary, he has my vote without question.
Posted by: Palouse on September 26, 2006 09:51 AMMy reservation is that Guilliani's stand on securing the borders may not be much different than Bush/McCain. However, unlike McCain, I believe he is more likely to come around. I have no reservations about how he would conduct the war on terrorism.
And as for being a fiscal conservative, he is bound to be better - a number of Democrats would be more fiscally conservative than the current President has shown to be. I believe he would also be better than McCain. What we gain in conservativism by nominating a Romney or an Allen, we lose in electability by not nominating Rudy... How would President Gore or God forbid - Hillary Roton Clinton sound ?