Posted on 09/22/2005 5:11:53 PM PDT by RWR8189
I attended an American Spectator dinner last night featuring John McCain. McCain spent much of the evening casting votes in the Senate, but returned and spoke with impressive energy and at considerable length. He said it was fine if everything was on the record. Those who think that McCain is still smoldering with anger at George W. Bush over the 2000 campaign should think again: McCain spoke fervently and with obvious sincerity about how much he admires Bush and the job he has been doing as president.
McCain addressed two issues that have the potential to divide the Republican base: spending and immigration.
On spending, he said that to offset the spending of Hurricane Katrina and to prevent what "may be the largest deficit in history," Congress should revisit the highway bill—the big transportation bill passed earlier this year—and should consider delaying or repealing the Medicare prescription drug bill. On both of these issues his positions are to the right of the Bush administration's: After all, Bush signed both bills.
McCain's position on the highway bill is consistent with his longstanding and mostly futile attacks on pork barrel spending, but he has more allies this time: Members of Congress like Sen. Richard Shelby and (!) House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have said they'd delay spending on projects in their state or district. The pork-busters movement of which I have written may be gathering momentum.
As for the Medicare prescription-drug bill, Democrats have been trashing this legislation persistently, and it isn't very popular in the polls. The prescription-drug benefit is scheduled to go into effect next year. Republicans passed this bill because Bush and House Republicans didn't want to go into the 2004 election cycle as opponents of a prescription-drug benefit. But now they don't see it as much of a political plus. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
The other issue that threatens to divide the Republican base is immigration. On this issue McCain stands to the left of the administration. He is the cosponsor, with Edward Kennedy, of one of the two major legislative vehicles on the issue; the other is cosponsored by his Arizona colleague Jon Kyl and Texas Republican John Cornyn. A major difference between the bills is that Kyl-Cornyn would require illegal immigrants wishing to legalize their status to return to their countries of origin and McCain-Kennedy would not.
Arizona is the state through which thousands of illegal immigrants have been coming across the border, and McCain speaks with visible anger at the spectacle of illegals roaming across the desert and dying of thirst. "The borders are broken." To those who favor the Kyl-Cornyn return provision, he says, "We have 11 million illegals. Are we going to send them back? I don't think so." Allowing people to legalize their status and then take their place in line is "not my definition of amnesty."
In response to my question, McCain suggested he was flexible on the issue and willing to compromise on various provisions. He even said he was willing to address first the status of agriculture workers, on which a bipartisan compromise has already been worked out by California Democratic Rep. Howard Berman. White House sources believe it is inevitable that Congress will have to address the issue. McCain will be a major player, and the White House could have no stronger advocate of whatever Congress works out than John McCain.
McCain of course was asked whether he would run for president in 2008, and he of course said that he hadn't made any decision. He spoke evidently sincere words of praise for other possible candidates: Bill Frist, George Allen, Rudolph Giuliani. But if his demeanor Wednesday night was a fair indication, he's running. Polls currently show him and Giuliani leading among Republican primary voters. His comments on spending and immigration were in line with the animating spirit of Republican primary electorates, even if some of the measures he continues to support (McCain-Kennedy, the McCain-Lieberman bill on global warming, campaign-finance regulation) are not.
That doesn't make sense. His bill with Kennedy is softer on illegals than the rest of the party, but somehow his "comments" are "in line with the animating spirit" of Republican primary voters? Looks like New Age mumbo-jumbo.
Dear oceanview,
"gay marriage for example has made its greatest strides ..."
So far at the state level, only.
I don't think that most folks would expect Mr. Bush to interfere at that level.
"only on the litmus test social issues - which neither McCain or Rudy will move the ball on either way if elected president. "
Well, I don't know about Sen. McCain. I do know that Mr. Giuliani would be unlikely to try to propose any federal limits on abortion; if it were to come up as a federal issue, he would not do anything to oppose federalized homosexual marriage; it is quite likely that he would re-introduce an "assault" weapons ban, etc.
So, in one case, we might get someone who doesn't turn the tide for us (Sen. McCain), in the other, we'd have someone who would advance the causes that we loathe.
As well, it is remotely possible that a President McCain might appoint justices to the Supreme Court who were not flaming liberals. It is highly unlikely that a President Giuliani (yech, now I have to wash my keyboard) would.
Sen. McCain wouldn't by my first choice.
Nor my second.
Perhaps not my third.
But I could hold my nose and pull the lever for him in the general election.
Short of his having a Damascus-like conversion experience, I could never, ever vote for Mr. Giuliani for president.
sitetest
it depends on who the opponent is. if its some unknown republican, who is "pure" on the litmus test issues, but otherwise unknown or uninspiring - we lose.
with Richardson on the ticket, states in the southwest with large hispanic populations - AZ, NV, NM, CO - will be in play. so will states like Ohio, that were close last time.
Hillary can win this thing.
McCain's health seems to be fine, and he's younger than Reagan when he ran for his second term.
I don't think either one of those will be a factor. I also think a not insignificant number of Democrats would vote for McCain.
He'd get almost all the military votes in a match up with Hillary.
He wants so badly to be president of something, anything.
You useless morons - every conservative grassroots organization in America (which a Republican MUST have to win) like Focus on the Family is going to tear McCain a new asshole the second McCain's Bullshit Express rolls into Iowa.
The grassroots feels they didn't get much out of Bush beyond modest taxcuts and Foreign policy, and the conservatives WILL be looking for a solid conservative, not another moderate like Bush ie that means NO RUDY or MCCAIN!
That is not and will not be the choice.
if the current SCOTUS tosses the defense of marriage act - can Bush do anything about that? what powers do you think he has?
don't confuse positions Rudy had to take as mayor of liberal NYC - with what he might do as president. he has a strong background as a lawyer and a prosecutor, and I hardly see his record as indicative of him appointing ruth bader ginsburg like justices.
Then you're brainless. And I don't understand why you're posting on this website.
"with Richardson on the ticket, states in the southwest with large hispanic populations"
1) 40% of the 41 million Hispanics in the US are here ILLEGALLY and can't vote (easily). And the ones that do vote are only 5% of the voting population wheras white voters are 82% of the electorate.
2) Richardson is an adulterer. Hillary's VEEP will either be Mark Warner or Evan Bayh, Richardson is a nonstarter.
"More Republicans will support him than you think."
I won't.
Nor I ..
All about McCain
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1306796/posts?page=14#14
WTF am I saying! LOL
Rudy will not win PERIOD!
The GOP Primary voters are not going to nominate a liberal/Moderate Republican anymore than the Democrats will nominate a Conservative/Moderate Democrat in 2008.
I suppose you expect a reply after that.
One thing's for sure: you don't speak for anybody other than a few knuckle draggers in your klavern.
a solid conservative, who is unknown and uninspiring - WILL LOSE.
In 2000, we had a well known candidate, good name recognition, well funded, that the american people were comfortable with because his father had been president, who was the governor of a large state - AND WE LOST THE POPULAR VOTE.
and in 2004, as an incumbent, we WON BY ONE STATE.
these Reagan style conservative landslides are not out there to be had anymore.
Hillary would never carry AZ.
McCain is this season's rock star, having followed Guiliani and Condoleeza Rice. I still think three years is enough time for somebody better suited to gain name recognition (how many people outside of Arkansas had heard of The Bent One in 1990?) As far as the Dimmiecrats go, they may actually start looking beyond the Hildebeast (who won't be electable for anything higher than Senator) for someone like Mike Warner or even Joe Lieberman in a bid to move away from the hardcore antiwar lefties and make some claim to the middle.
And neither will I. If he gets the republican nomination he is going to need every bit of the independent vote he can get.
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.