He is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick...but, just a bit.
I’ll speak to the question of his ACU ratings.
First of all, he used to be more conservative than he is now, I suspect because Arizona used to be more conservative than it is now. Here are Romesh Ponnaru’s figures, from The Corner:
McCain’s ACU Ratings [Ramesh Ponnuru]
2000: 81
2001: 68
2002: 78
2003: 80
2004: 72
2005: 80
2006: 65
In recent years, in other words, he has been dragging down his average, sometimes slightly and sometimes substantially.
Second, ACU ratings don’t mean squat if the liberal actions are really important and the conservative actions are minor. McCain has been responsible for pushing some really BIG liberal ideas through the senate. That’s different from being one of a hundred people voting on a minor bill where your vote doesn’t actually have any effect.
I know it’s bleak, but the real questions are, What are we going to do now?
Should our primary effort be short term or long term? We don’t have a lot of options.
We can all join another party and build it into a contender. {might take years}
We can play dead or even vote Democrat so they’ll get the blame when everything goes to hell. {sure they will, /sarc}
We could squeeze McVain for all the promises we can get out of him {knowing he will shaft us} in exchange for our vote this year. - Meanwhile we groom a real conservative to run against him continually, kind of like the Dems have done to W since 2001.
I’ll vote for McCain if it’s McCain vs Clinton.
If it’s McCain vs Obama ... well ... I don’t think he has a chance so it doesn’t really matter.
Not that good of a special friend. Without Huckabee in the race, McCain a minimum of 100 more delegates by now. Romney's showing in Illinois and California would have been replicated in Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and Arkansas at the least.
Not that good of a special friend. Without Huckabee in the race, McCain a minimum of 100 more delegates by now. Romney's showing in Illinois and California would have been replicated in Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and Arkansas at the least.
No.
In his speech today, he said, “Secure the border FIRST.”
Note the adverb. A sobering warning.
McCain has the character to be a fine president. He showed it in his judgment about strategy in Iraq. He has also shown it in his ability to represent the mushy middle in US political life, something Republicans once understand they had to do, and were good at.
He has the potential to dramatically expand the party and to marginalize democrats on national security issues.
He represents a centerward lurch that was simply required by the decline in power of republicans over the second Bush presidency, which was a function of poor performance in office and disunity.
We can "bid" for more later in better years, nothing is lost or settled in US politics by one election.
He will control spending and if he has any kind of republican backing in congress, balance the budget without raising taxes by the end of his term.
He won't lose the war, which matters whatever you try to pretend.
He will get Bin Laden, using human intel networks built up inside Pakistan.
Can you make the case against him without mentioning McCain-Feingold? McCain-Kennedy? Immigration? McCain-Lieberman? Gang of 14?
Good post, and excellent reasons to support McCain despite his warts.
Can you make the case without using the term “nuckin’ futs”?
But I'll play along in your room:
The earmark pledge. McCain is a spending hawk. Has been for as long as I've paid attention to politics (late 80s). Fiscal restraint was once a hallmark of the GOP. It served it well during the '80s and well into the 104th and 105th. Budgetary restraint is a proper framework for discussing policy and legislation and it would behoove the GOP to regain the mantle of fiscal conservatism. I honestly think that a McCain presidency would help rein in the Rep caucus in congress and help it shed its relatively recent reputation for being as bad on pork as the Dems. This is not a small issue and should not be for any conservative. Under your rules, I cannot bring up the opposition's record and stance which are very appropriate to discuss.
He's pro-life. He's opposed to partial birth abortion. He's voted to prevent federal funding of Planned Parenthood. He's voted against federal funding for the distribution of abortifacient pills in public schools. And he's consistently made the case. Under your rules, I cannot bring up the opposition's record and stance which are very appropriate to discuss.
He supports school choice. I, personally, am not completely onboard with this issue, but it is huge with conservatives. Under your rules, I cannot bring up the opposition's record and stance which are very appropriate to discuss.
You don't want any of us to discuss ACU ratings, but here's NARAL's rating for McCain: 0% pro-abort. AFL-CIO's? 17% pro-union. Under your rules, I cannot bring up the opposition's record and stance which are very appropriate to discuss.
He's never voted to raise taxes. Under your rules, I cannot bring up the opposition's record and stance which are very appropriate to discuss.
He is opposed to the Dem's attempts to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine." Under your rules, I cannot bring up the opposition's record and stance which are very appropriate to discuss. Under your rules, I cannot bring up the opposition's record and stance which are very appropriate to discuss.
He neither supports nor advocates nationalizing the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Under your rules, I cannot bring up the opposition's record and stance which are very appropriate to discuss. Under your rules, I cannot bring up the opposition's record and stance which are very appropriate to discuss.
He touches the supposed third-rail of politics and advocates privatizing that untouchable Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. Under your rules, I cannot bring up the opposition's record and stance which are very appropriate to discuss.
Care for me to continue?
I have lived in AZ for almost 20 years. I have never (EVER) met one person who supported or even ‘kinda’ liked McCain. Not one.
I was totally shocked by the votes. I don’t know where they came from - but they sure don’t come from any circles I have ever encountered.
I would be interested in seeing a case for McCain that doesn’t enlist the dem candidates. Any honest case for this man that doesn’t rely on fear of the dems.
I wouldn’t find it persuasive, but I would be interested in seeing it.
I would vote for Ted Kennedy if he were the nominee and running against Hillary.
Happily.
I do not support McCain, but I can tell you why I liked him more than Romney.
I am first and foremost a social conservative. Issues like the Second Amendment, Right to Life, traditional marriage, and family values are right now more important to me than small government, lower taxes and illegal immigration.
McCain has been solidly pro-life for 25 years. Although his record is not spotless, he has for the most part opposed gun control. And he does not support special rights for gays. ALL these were issues where Mitt Romney flipped.
I NEED conservative judges and justices. I was less likely to get them from a flipper.
Having said that, I would have voted for Romney without any problem if he got the nomination. Any of our candidates are better on any issue than the ‘Rats.
You don’t like McCain on illegal immigration? You think you would like Hillary more?
You don’t like McCain on entitlements? You think you would like Obama more?
Anyway, sorry I digressed.
The point is simple. Romney, McCain, and Huckabee are conservatives! But they are also all flawed in some areas. None of them are “as conservative as we would like.” None of them are “totally conservative.”
None of them unite the Reagan coalition of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and foreign policy conservatives.
Generally speaking the fiscal conservatives were behind Romney, the social conservatives are behind Huckabee, and the foreign policy conservatives are behind McCain.
Why is McCain winning? Conventional wisdom is that it is because he also draws in the indepedents and so-called “moderates.” But I have another theory.
I live in arguably the most Evangelical community in the country — Wheaton, IL. The home of Wheaton College (motto “For Christ and His Kingdom” and alma mater to Billy Graham). We have more churches than restaurants, gas stations and 7-Elevens combined. We voted last Tuesday and turnout was huge — I have never seen so many senior citizens at the polls ever, and it was snowing! And McCain carried our community with 56% of the vote. McCain beat Huckabee in the capitol of Evangelicalism!
You see, I think it is all the Seniors and Vietnam vets voting for McCain. Constituencies usually more likely to vote Democrat.
That hurts the ‘Rats. That is good for McCain. That is good for us. That is good for me getting my conservative judges and justices.
Because anyone with sense realizes it will be a two person race in the General, and a vote for McCain is a vote against the Dem candidate.
Anything else is a bunch of crybabies talking.