Charlie got an e-mail this morning from somebody who, in Allahpundit’s words, is taking a SECOND LOOK AT MCCAIN! Since my response is going to bust the 500-character limit over there, I’ll let loose here, at least as soon as I get a couple of disclaimers out of the way; I’m a FredHead, and I don’t speak for anybody other than me.
Dear Charlie,
Don’t get me wrong I’m as conservative as they come, and as most conservatives have not been happy with John McCain lately. However, I have taken a second look at him since Iowa, and have realized he’s not as bad as I thought. Here’s my take.
I too have taken a second look at McCain; however, he is as bad as I thought.
1) He’ll be just as good as Guiliani on the war on terror, a lot of conservatives give Rudy a pass on a lot of issues because of his strong war stance. why not McCain?
I will grant that McCain understands the war must be fought, just like Giuliani, Thompson, Hunter and Romney. However, due to understandable personal reasons, he is mistaken on what needs to be done to get information out of jihadis that we capture.
2) At least he’s Pro-Life.
Just like Thompson, Hunter, Huckabee, and at least since 1995, Romney.
3) Cannot be criticized for being a hypocrite on the war, because he did serve honorably in the military.
Just like Hunter.
4) Media does like him a little, I know they will turn on him fast during the general election, but at least I don’t think it will be as venomous as it would be with; Huckabee, Romney and the rest.
Really? I believe they will be even more venomous because they will have to work extra-hard to get people to forget that they did like him.
5) Can claim the high road on the campaign, because of his campaign reform bill (I know I don’t like it, but it will make a good commercial).
You mean like Russ “I’ll take the high road” Feingold? Of course, the letter-writer ignores that the McShame-Slimeroad Lieberal Protection Act is patently unconstitutional.
6) Does have widespread name recognition, except for people who pay attention, no one knows who Romney, or Huckabee are.
There is such a thing as bad publicity, and that is what McCain has.
7) Has hardly any personal baggage to make him a easy target.
Does the Keating Five ring a bell?
8) His voting record in the Senate (which could be better) will look a lot more mainstream than the ultra liberal records of, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.
Except for his records on judges, campaign “finance”, taxes, illegal immigration (shall I go on?)
9) Will attract a sizeable chunk of the Senior vote, which Republicans have been losing it’s share lately.
Really? That assumes that seniors as a whole are just as easily-led by the nose as Dem women and blacks.
I admit I have some hang ups still, but we need an electable candidate. No, I am not on his campaign, or affiliated with him in any way. Just a person worried what this Country will look like after four years of a liberal President. Thank you.
McCain qualifies as a liberal as well, folks.
“Except for his records on judges, campaign "finance", taxes, illegal immigration (shall I go on?)”
I can’t speak to his record on judges, but I think the campaign finance reform was a step in the right direction, incomplete as it may be. As far as taxes, he’s the only one preaching fiscal responsibility by not lowering taxes without first cutting costs. Lowering taxes by itself generates revenue, but mortgages our future without a like reduction in spending. Bush’s tax cut was only half a plan.
As far as illegal immigration, he’s not just waving a magic wand and granting amnesty. His plan at least requires each immigrant to go through a formal process before having citizenship granted. We can’t just kick 12 million illegals out of the country. At least McCain has a plan. No one else is really touching the subject.
Like your blog by the way…
Boy, for someone who has his own blog, I would have thought you would have at least some ability to think and rationalize. I’m the one that emailed Charlie about McCain and here’s my rebuttal. Points 1-3; you mentioned that others fall into that candidate, my point exactly, however as much as you and I want it to happen, Duncan Hunter will not be the Candidate. So at least McCain is on the Right side of the two key issues among conservatives, Pight to Life, and the War on Terror. Point 4; I don’t think so, too much of a track record. Point 5; I told you I didn’t like it but it will play well. Point 6; to most conservatives McCain has bad publicity to the Public his name has substance. Point 7; Keating 5 was long ago and I was talking more about divorces, and affairs and the like. Point 8; I said his record could be better can’t you read? However it will look better than anyone the Democrats endorse. Point 9; have you seen an AARP ad lately Seniors can be led more so than other groups. McCain could be better, but do you really want President Hillary?
Ahhh, hostile reaction; the lifeblood of any blog. I’ll deal with Jason first, as he was here first, and he is a lot more pleasant to deal with:
– I suppose you would be happier if the First Amendment with regard to speech had never been ratified. The only problem is, it was. Therefore, McCain-Feingold, especially with regard to its pre-election gag order, is precisely the wrong answer.
– Given that the bipartisan Party-In-Government has propensity to spend like drunken longshoremen regardless to how much or how little money comes in, I’d rather have more money left in my pocket to pay the butcher’s bill than less. I know that butcher’s bill (actually, bills) will come due in my lifetime.
Where I will give McCain mad props is his willingness to hold the line on spending. If only we had a majority willing to hold the line on both spending and taxes, we’d be much better off.
– Since, under McCain’s amnesty plan, we are going to treat the illegal aliens differently than what the law currently requires (namely, deportation), it is indeed amnesty. It may not be the unconditional amnesty handed out in 1986, but it will have the same lack-of-results.
And now for George. You want to take personal potshots? Okay. I can fire right back, you ignorant fool.
Which explains why, prior to Iowa, the media was busy promoting first Giuliani, then Huckabee, right? Their lack of permanent allies also showed on the Dem end; many of the presstitutes bailed on Clinton after her Iowa performance, only to jump right back on after New Hampshire.
It won’t play so well when Clinton and Edwards will point out that they voted for McShame-Slimeroad as well, and Obama will say he supports it.
The trouble is, this is going to be a base-turnout election; whichever side turns out more of its base will win. The “famed” middle won’t much matter, which does not speak well to McCain’s overall chances, or to Huckabee’s or to Giuliani’s.
Chappaquiddick was also “a long time ago”, and it still sunk Ted Kennedy in 1980. Trust me when I say it will become a big issue if McCain were the nominee.
The AARP is going to endorse the ‘Rat regardless of whether the Pubbies put up an “old guy” or not. The seniors are not going to vote for somebody just because he’s old.
You obviously haven’t been reading the last 2+ years of posts; otherwise you wouldn’t have made such a stupid statement. The fact that you did speaks to your lack of intelligence and inability to read.
Boy thinner skin than I thought. Notice you concede points 1-3. Point 4 yes the Media will go after him, but not with the zeal they would with another Republican candidate that is literally indisputable. Point 5 yes the Democrats will say they support it, but doesn’t it mean more to actually sponsor the bill than just saying it’s OK. Point 6 the base is the base is the base we need independents and main stream democrats if we are going to win this thing. Point 7 if the media can bring up Keating than Whitewater and the land dealings Obamba has in Illinois will be fair game McCain will look good in comparison. Point 8 you conceded as well. Point 9 you really don’t have a clue to Seniors do you? I can read very well thank you very much, never read your blog until I saw your response on Charlie’s site. So I don’t know your stance on Hillary, I wouldn’t think you would support her, but if you can’t tell when someone is using irony to make their point than I guess you are the one with a lack of intelligence. Now if you want to get into name calling and insults, that’s fine you’ll just demean yourself, your blog, and our shared cause. I don’t even know who I will vote for yet, just had a thought about McCain. Wanted to see what others thought. You and others need to have a more open mind if we are going to win the general election. Thank you for the opportunity to post and good luck with your blog. Remember Reagan’s 11th Commandment. Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican
I guess it matches your thin skin. I came in and attacked your premeses; you’re the one that came in with a cheap shot. Now, I can continue with the cheap shot war, or I can begin instruction on my mindset.
Let’s review what I left at Charlie’s site: “Short answer – No, at least not until it is down to the general.” Does that sound like I’d take a Dem over McCain?
As for the 11th Commandment; it is not exactly operative in a primary situation, which is where we are now. If orthodoxy is not challenged at this point, when is it? If orthodoxy is not challenged from time to time, we get the 109th Congress, the 2005-2006 Legislature, and Gerald Ford, followed by quick defeat.
Do you really believe that, outside of the blogosphere and talk radio, Whitewater or Obama’s land deals will get any coverage? If so, I’ve got a slightly-cracked bridge to sell you. Indeed, Whitewater already got hashed over once in a Presidential campaign, and the media and a plurality (with some “help” from said media) decided it didn’t mean anything significant.