McCain Part DeuxAddressing my friends who made some excellent arguments:
Kitty:
Allow me to be the first to say NO WAY JOSE! to this backstabber. And IMHO, McCain IS a backstabber.At this point I think we have to entertain the possibility that McCain has stabbed at backs when they deserved to be stabbed. I'm as big a Bush loyalist as anybody, but are we going to admit at some point that he appears to have made some mistakes along the way? Maybe, just maybe, McCain really disagreed with Bush.
Aren't you jumping the gun a bit early? Why not wait at least a few months to see who is on the horizon?Allen was the guy on the horizon several months ago; at this point the realistic field is Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Newt. Does anybody really think Tom Tancredo or Chuck Hagel has a chance? Please stop reading my blog in that case; we're talking serious politics here. Brownback's arguably a candidate, but he's not going to come on like gangbusters.
If I had to choose right now, I'd choose Rudy. He has far better numbers than McCain, whose negatives are increasing as that straw poll continues. He did wonders with NYC, and the whole country knows how well he handled the 9/11 attack. Heck, even Dems praised him! PLUS, he's not a hot-tempered loose cannon with a permanent grudge.So it's Guiliani or McCain. I could certainly support Rudy G; he has much of the same crossover appeal that McCain has. But while I was in awe of his performance on 9-11, somebody has to talk about his performance in his aborted 2000 Senate run against Hillary. He was going to lose that election and lose it badly. Granted it's New York and pre 9-11; things have changed.
Aaron says I've jumped the shark! I didn't know I was ever good enough to be considered to have jumped the shark to being awful. ;)
Did you have a chance to read hewitts take on this? you seem to be a hh fan...Hugh's a great guy but he doesn't like McCain for whatever reason. The notion that somehow the Gang of 14 is responsible for the loss of this election is silly, and to the extent it has any traction at all, it's because Hugh and others made it a big deal. The Gang worked out well in my opinion.
Fatman:
You're panicking. We lost a mid-term election in the sixth year of a presidency (always a bad time to be both an incumbent and a member of the President's party) and you want to put into the White House a man who did nothing less than betray his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.I don't buy the argument that this was just a typical sixth year vote. Most reelected presidents sweep into office a whole bunch of people in marginal seats with them, who inevitably lose without the prez on the ballot the next time around. The numbers are skewed by the likes of Reagan in 1984 and Nixon in 1972, who brought in big freshmen classes in the House that were swept back out to sea in 1986 and 1974. I'm sure there was a similar phenomenon in 1936 for Roosevelt. Clinton did not have a sixth-year swoon as you may remember; he also didn't carry his party to a big victory in his reelection year.
Fatman also decries pork barrel spending, apparently not realizing that McCain is one of the strongest senators combatting that particular issue. He also says that McCain is Democrat Lite.
McCain's career rating from the American Conservative Union is 83. Joe Lieberman is a 17. Liberal Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine check in at about 50. Sam Brownback is a 95, and George Allen was a 92. I don't believe that the difference between an 83 and a 92 is going quite to Democrat Lite.
However, Fatman does bring in one legitimate point:
And the irony is that McCain-Feingold actually increased the out-of-control campaign spending by funneling it into 527s, where it's harder to track, at a cost of restricting our free speech during political campaigns. And are you forgetting McCain's attempts to include bloggers (that's you and me) in those restrictions?I'm not a fan of McCain-Feingold. But one of John McCain's flaws is that he absorbs personal lessons almost too well. I believe that he hates fundraising personally and so he's amenable to legislation against it. See also torture...
Marathon Man:
I had a shorter post on McCain on my blog. One of my fears of a McCain nomination is the "retread" factor--his getting the nomination as Dole did in 1996, because he "it's his turn." That won't excite the swing voters. Still, even though our side lost, McCain's stock is up because of his hard work for GOP candidates in the weeks leading up to election day.I agree with John here about Dole, but it's important to remember that Clinton was probably not going to be beaten by anybody in 1996. That's the reason that Dole had such lackluster competition.
Anna's willing to take a wait and see attitude, but Wild Bill says no way he's voting for McCain. Even if it's a choice between him and Hillary, Bill?
Look, I'm not deluded about the power of my prose. I am not going to lead anybody anyplace they don't already want to go. I'm not announcing my endorsement in the hopes that it will change minds. I'm doing it so you know where I stand, and where to expect some bias on my part.
