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.
Richardson is an adulterer, how many people care about that? the friggin presidential candidate's husband took a BJ in the oval office, and you are telling me that the ticket is dead because the VP fooled around on his wife?
Well if its a choice between McCain and Hillary I guess I'd have to vote McCain. But we're talking about a choice between McCain and any other Republican candidate. I'm sure any other Republican candidate would win.
"One thing's for sure: you don't speak for anybody other than a few knuckle draggers in your klavern."
I work with washington lobbyists and conservative activists on a weekly basis and they ALL say McCain has no hope in the Primary.
You don't have to believe me but when McCain gets run out of New hampshire on a rail, I'll give you some lipstick so you can kiss my butt and tell me how I was right.
tell me, who did AZ elect as governor? Colorado elected a Dem hispanic in a statewide US Senate race.
they are in play.
What is your source for these stats? A link would be nice as well.
2) Richardson is an adulterer. Hillary's VEEP will either be Mark Warner or Evan Bayh, Richardson is a nonstarter
Nobody cares about somebody's private life. Bill Richardson is a helluva lot more in touch with his voters and his state than many other governors.
You're 0-2.
You won't change my mind. To me, there's no difference voting for McCain than voting for Clinton. We might actually be better off with Clinton because then maybe the GOP will grow some balls again.
MCCAIN NO!
I will not vote for people I don't like or trust. If Bill Clinton was a republican I wouldn't vote for him either.
Napolitano won by 11,000 votes. The Republican Party chose the wrong candidate to run against her. Even I had a hard time pulling the hammer for Salmon. There were also several third party candidates that got 100,000 votes which hurt Salmon. That won't be an issue in the race for the Presidency.
One more reason not to vote for Captain RINO.
McLame is shifting to the right?? I don't believe it.
31 states to 19. 31 -19 = 1?
"a solid conservative, who is unknown and uninspiring - WILL LOSE"
Two points
1) Even if a solid conservative can't win, it doesn't matter because the primary voters will ONLY vote for conservative candidates, so wer'e stuck with a noname conservative in 2008 whether you like it or not.
2) If you need name ID before the primary to win, then howcome Clinton defeated a sitting President in 1992 despite the fact that nobody knew who Clinton was in 1989?
"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."
You're rewritting history.
In 2000 we had the son of a failed President who was successfully painted as an idiot son of privilege by the Media and Gore campaign. Further Rove ran a mediocre campaign and we only lost the popular vote because of the stupid DUI revalation a week before the election.
"and in 2004, as an incumbent, we WON BY ONE STATE."
Again, Rove runs weak campaigns.
What does the republican party stand for if it votes for a ahole that turns our stomach?
NOT A CHANCE!!
If we become a handout society, McCain would be ideal.
AZ elected Butch, but only because of campaign finance laws. Matt learned his lesson.
we won in 2004 by one state electorally - the only result that counts.
As I've said, I can live with McCain as a last resort.
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.