Couldn't agree with you more.
Posted on 09/27/2005 8:33:38 AM PDT by Aetius
September 27, 2005, 8:07 a.m. Right Nodding The McCain 2008 goal.
Katrina has indeed altered our political landscape: For the first time in years, conservatives have listened to Arizona Sen. John McCain talk about a high-profile domestic issue and have nodded their heads vigorously. The maverick Republican made his reputation by bucking his own party, especially its conservative base, and, after his failed 2000 nomination bid, seemed to want to make a career out of it. Democrats fantasized about a Kerry-McCain ticket in 2004, as McCain occupied his own little world of resentment at how the 2000 nomination had supposedly been stolen from him and of a “progressive” Republicanism at times difficult to distinguish from Democratic orthodoxy.
After Katrina and the countless billions of dollars that began pouring toward the Gulf Coast, conservatives clamored for spending offsets elsewhere in the budget, and there was McCain right there with them, excoriating pork-barrel spending (as he always has) and calling for repeal of the massive new Medicare prescription-drug entitlement. In a major battle between conservatives in Congress who want to cut spending and the party’s leadership, which is — to put it mildly — unenthusiastic about the prospect, McCain is with the conservative rebels.
This is so important because, if he runs, McCain is probably the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But he’s an odd front-runner, a front-runner whose campaign is almost certainly doomed unless he handles conservatives better than he did in 2000. McCain will come out of the gate with formidable assets, among them near-universal name recognition, media adulation and credibility as a serious candidate. But if he again lets another major candidate get to his right on nearly everything — as he let President Bush in 2000 — his campaign will again attract independents, but not the Republicans who are by definition necessary to win the Republican nomination.
So McCain is in a different game from other potential candidates. They need money, media attention, and insider buzz. McCain needs the Right to stop loathing him, and he seems to realize it.
When McCain went out on the campaign trail with Bush — whom he held in contempt for years after 2000 — and gave him bearhugs, it was clear that the senator’s presidential ambitions hadn’t died. It is hard to believe that those hugs were heart-felt. Indeed, McCain’s campaign will strain his capacities for insincerity. If a second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience, a second McCain presidential campaign, to be successful, will have to be the triumph of experience over the candidate’s own predilections.
McCain’s natural constituency is the bookers on Hardball With Chris Matthews, or any other public-affairs show; he is “controversial,” while usually managing to say what the media wants to hear. In 2000, it became clear his grand goal was to blow up the current Republican coalition and craft something new, although it was left vague what exactly. He has never demonstrated great affection for social conservatives, whom he blasted in 2000. But he can work around these things. He recently endorsed teaching Intelligent Design in schools, although he probably has as much sympathy for this critique of evolution as the New York Times editorial board does.
McCain will be the strongest performing Republican against Hillary Clinton in early opinion polls; if anything, he is more aggressive on the war on terror than Bush is; he will have a strong theme of returning to a cleaner Republicanism after the ethical lapses of the current congressional majority. And all of this will be wrapped in his appealing thematic mix of patriotism, sacrifice and duty.
The problem for McCain is that he has such a richly layered history of apostasy, including on conservative gospel like the Bush tax cuts. Some of it is of recent vintage, for instance the enforcement-less immigration bill he is co-sponsoring with Ted Kennedy. A strong conservative candidate who unites the Right can take him down. But for that candidate, the less conservatives nod their heads at anything McCain has to say, the better.
Republicans will unite against Hillary. They'll cave for McCain and he'll get more crap passed.
I wouldn't vote for either of them.
But what exactly is an extremist? What extreme religious right policies stand a chance of becoming law in the nation as a whole, or in any state? If Roe were overturned, abortion laws would eventually reflect the very mixed views of the people. Its much more likely that the Left's extreme view on this issue -- abortion on demand -- would remain law in large sections of the country whereas the Right's extreme view -- all abortions banned -- would be rejected everywhere. As to marriage, well it takes a lot more than the religious right to garner the overwhelming majorities that have rejected gay marriage in each and every state that has submitted the matter to its people. For example, if it were only the religious right who opposed gay marriage, then I doubt the Calif ban of it would have won with 61% of the vote, or with 56% in Oregon.
I can understand that libertarians tend to be more liberal on social and cultural issues, and as a big tent party, the GOP should be able to accomodate such members. But what I don't understand is the seeming support from many libertarians for the outrageous manner in which the courts impose liberal social policy on the entire nation on nonexistent constitutional grounds.
We need to have a certain respect for the concept of voting with one's feet; if you don't like the cultural values of a conservative state, then either deal with it or move, likewise if one doesn't like the liberal values of a state, then either deal with it or move elsewhere. Things not protected from or elevated above the normal democratic processes by the Constitution should be left to those normal democratic processes.
This is of course made impossible by the type of jurisprudence favored by Warren Rudman.
Couldn't agree with you more.
I cannot speak for all Libertarians; but, as for me, I see extremism in a 40-year War on Drugs that has failed miserably when a better program would be to decriminalize petty products like pot and tax the hell out of its sale; then use the income to treat and educate the users of hard drugs. I see extremism as the left not understanding that there is a point of no return in pregnancy (somewhere in the mid second trimester when "quickening" occurs). I see extremism on the Right as not understanding that some unfortunate people are burdened with a same sex proclivity from birth and that they should be allowed the same advantage that traditional man-woman unions have, however, that advantage cannot be called marriage in that it doesn't follow the looks like, acts like, quacks like duck logic. I see extremism as an abuse of power by both parties when it comes to confiscatory taxation of the citizenry when a flat tax is the fairest tax. I see extremism in welfare, whether it is individual, corporate or disquised as foreign aid.
Libertarians (at least in my case) strongly believe in the right to ownership of firearms, in free trade (and neither CAFTA or NAFTA meets that definition), in free borders (but where non-citizen migrants do not have the benefit of free education, health care or social service programs), in the freedom to exercise religious preferences anywhere or anytime, in private charity to replace all government handouts, in a war only when Congress declares it, in private property rights with certain limitations on what is in community standards of good taste and is not harmful to neighbors, in the marketplace to solve labor issues and establish wage earnings, in tough, truth in sentencing punishment for violators of law, and most of all in freedom. Succinctly, I would love to have Republicans out of our bedrooms, Democrats out of our wallets, and BOTH OF THEM OUT OF OUR CONSTITUTION!!!!
you really can't believe that drivel...
You've described the senior senator from Arizona quite accurately. McCain is a political opportunist, with little use for principle.
Thus, by definition, he is not trustworthy. Without the ballast of right and wrong to guide him, McCain will say and do those things which yield him political popularity -- without regard to their impact on the nation and its people.
Since "political popularity" is defined by the polls and the polls are largely defined by the MSM, we know who McCain would be saluting -- day in, day out.
Hmm..interesting. Is he thinking of running?
Good point about Perry and the TX fear factor. He's almost like having Jeb run...we like these TX men but not sure we want another Bush right now.
About Racicot....he ran the RNC for nearly 4 years. I know we hardly ever saw him, McAwful got all the media attention, along with DNC, from the libnutmedia. Maybe Bush persuaded Racicot to take that job rather than run for senate? Plus..IMO...a job in the senate is a few notches down once one has been a state governor.
I'm also leaning to George Allen...all I've read and heard about him, I like! :) I just hope that we run someone strong and conservative for a change...that would be nice.
If McCain beleived that, why is he a member of the gang of 14? It seems to be something McCain fights against.
Sadly, no. :(
Well membership in the Gang doesn't necessarily denote an opposition to Scalia/Thomas types. I believe that Lindsey Graham definitely supports such candidates. And isn't it the case that Graham, DeWine, McCain, and Warner voted for all of the 'controversial' appellate court nominees?
As to why McCain spearheaded the Gang; there could be many reaons other than an opposition to good conservative judges. They include: Ego and love of media attention and adoration; a delusional view that such action truly saved the 'dignity' of the Senate; an almost admirable but incorrect view that he thought it was the only way to get good judges like Brown, Owens, and Pryor confirmed; or finally, and implausibly, that he wanted to preserve the filibuster for Republican use against liberal nominations from a future Dem president.
I say the last one is unlikely because if the GOP did nothing but bend over and embrace Ginsburg, then what chance is there that they'll ever respond in kind?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.