Conservatives are not “extremists”. I think he did what he thought was best for McCain, not the country.

Better put extremists like Ann Coutler aren’t conservatives. And the Gang of Fourteen saved the Republican’s butt on this one, because if we had done what the extremists wanted, there would have been all hell to pay.

In any case, I think Yglesias’s commentary stands here. This isn’t about conservative principle, it’s about disagreement over tactics dressed up as an ideological argument.

Misrepresenting his voting record by cherry picking only certain votes to discuss is. The same goes for quoting him out of context.

Is it unfair to criticize him for his support of:

Illegal Immigration?
Democrats blocking qualified judicial nominees?
Banning political speech by non-elites?
Wrecking the economy with a euro style carbon cap and trade scheme?

Is it misquoting him by pointing out that he sounded like the Democrats when he said the Bush tax cuts went too much to the wealthy? (Because he apparently had other concerns?)

Is it unfair to point out that he acted inappropriately benefiting a donor, specifically Charles Keating?

Was it over the line to point out that he didn’t deny he had meetings with Tom Daschle to switch parties, only saying that he never really considered doing so?

I need to know these things in order to be able to do my job around here?

At least with Obama we know to merely stay away from his middle name, his background and his voting record.

Since when are we concerned about politically
agnostic programming?

Wake up!!! The entertainment programming on the MSM is chock full of anti-Republican propaganda. This weeks “Medium” had a plot with an Arizona Senator who was a Vietnam War captive and who killed and ate another captive. Catch all the news broadcasts throughout the “family hour”. You’re seriously out of touch here, Carrick.
Even a military-oriented show like “NCIS” has a part where the former Marine Gunny says he “supports the troops, but not the war”. It’s pure crap, it’s propaganda, and it’s constant.

As I recall, Abe Fortas, who was already an Associate Justice when he was nominated by LBJ to replace Earl Warren as Chief, was filibustered on the Senate floor when it came to light that he had lied to the Judiciary Committee about a privately funded lifetime “stipend” he was receiving. The filibuster was bi-partisan.

Good Lord. I make my last post on this blog just after midnight, and I get home to find 120 responses in my inbox, most of which pertain to this McCain quandary.

I hear ya.

Somebody’s got a lot of time on their hands.

And you know what?

Juan McCain hasn’t gotten one iota more Conservative in the past 24 hours. If you think he will appoint a Conservative to the SCOTUS you’ve been sniffing airplane glue again. He hasn’t felt particularly limited by the Conservatives in his state, once he gets in, what will be the mitigating influence on him? At 71, you think he’s looking far off into the future?

Nah.

Once he has your vote he’ll spit in your face and do all the damage he damn well wants to do. You can call and e-mail and fax until you are blue in the face, but he won’t give a rip. He won’t have to.

Nope.

I’m not going that route. Even if you McCainiacs don’t see the tiger for his stripes, the track record is there for all to see. You vote for him, it’s suicide. If Hillabama gets in, at least there can be war.

I choose fighting over suicide.

Robert108, it’s not cherry picking to look at issues that concern us. On the issues, Whistler and I aren’t that far apart, though I do disagree with him and most America about campaign finance reform.

However, it is cherry picking to use these issues to argue that he’s actually a closet liberal, as some have done, when his record says otherwise. My point is you take the record as a whole and you use that to produce a portrait of the man, not just the parts you don’t like about him. That is cherry picking.

Whistler are you standing by this comment “Well the Senate ethics committee said he did.” or are you trying to distract from it now?

My link didn’t work for some reason.

The committee recommended censure for Cranston and criticized the other four [including McCain] for “questionable conduct.”

Substitute questionable for unethical.

If I understand his questionable conduct was having a meeting with regulators to intercede for Keating.

skh.pcola, that is a pretty lame argument I have to say.

Most of us who are voting for McCain aren’t doing so simply out of party identification. We see it in our interests to do so, the same as you see it not in yours.

The odd thing about you anti-McCain types is how you seem to willing to impugn the character and motives of people who don’t agree with your judgement. I obviously think you’re all wet about the particulars, or I wouldn’t be voting the way I am.

Who gave you grief by the way? I remember none of that.

McCain helped break a stalemate and get federal judges appointed who were being blocked by the Democrats. In return for this, he “gave away” judges who had no chance of getting confirmed by the Senate without engaging the nuclear option.

This was a major loss for the Democratic Party. They gained almost nothing from the deal. He did what was best for the country, but not for the extremists. I kind of like what Ylesias says about this one:

It’s probably not my place to judge, but of all things for conservatives to distrust about John McCain surely this “gang of fourteen” business is the silliest. This was a disagreement over tactics not any grand questions of principle. There’s never been any indication that McCain doesn’t favor conservative judicial nominees. Indeed, the upshot of the compromise McCain helped broker was the confirmation of a bunch of conservative judges. It seems to me that McCain’s tactics were pretty smart and effective. But even if you disagree and think his tactical judgment was wrong, it was just that — a question of tactics.

Also one of his commentators:

Actually, I think it is not just silly but rather revealing that Republican true believers are actively offended by the idea of acting in concert with Democrats, no matter what the objective results. Cooperation with The Evil Ones is by definition wrong, even if the results are good.

Some of that is at operation here too. Not necessarily with you or Robert108, but there are certainly some who see things this way. (Flip side I know Democrats who see any cooperation with Republicans as inherently evil, so…)

By that you mean, only if you get to cherry pick which parts to look at.

There are a few issues that I consider to be important. However I don’t believe I deny that he’s not all bad.

But if his bad outweighs his good then I won’t vote for him.

By the way, one good in his corner is earmarks. However, what’s he ever done about entitlement reform?

When President Bush was proposing reform of Social Security did he lend any support or was he like the Democrats who want to leave the problem until it’s too late to fix?

Fox has more prime time viewers than the other cable news channels combined.

CBS news and the others because of their short duration can’t compete for influence with 24-hour news channels. Radio channels of course are also dominated by conservatives.

The only place you may have a real point is the print media. With the fall off in readership (more like collapse in some cases) with mainstream newspapers, the influence of this medium is also deteriorating over time.

In addition to this, we have the ascendance of blogs. Instapundit gets more daily views than CNN news for example.

I don’t think this is nearly as bleak as you are making it out. In the long run, if conservatives lose out it’s either because their ideas aren’t as good, or because they failed to use the correct tactics to sell them to the general population (moderates and independents).

I’m sorry I will only vote for a candidate that actually improves things (from my persepective of course.)

If on a scale of -10 to 10, I’ll vote for McCain if only he’s a 1 or a 2. On the other I won’t vote for him if he’s a -1 even if the other candidate is a -7 or -8.

Illegal Immigration? Fair criticism.
Democrats blocking qualified judicial nominees? Completely unfair and contentious.
Banning political speech by non-elites? Unfair and misrepresentative of what the legislation has done/not done.
Wrecking the economy with a euro style carbon cap and trade scheme? Reasonable criticism, though it’s not clear how he will respond as president on this issue. He’s shown the ability to be trainable.

Was it over the line to point out that he didn’t deny he had meetings with Tom Daschle to switch parties, only saying that he never really considered doing so? No. Nothing unfair about repeating DNC talking points! You have any evidence that he considered switching parties, post it.

Is it unfair to point out that he acted inappropriately benefiting a donor, specifically Charles Keating? How much do you know about this story, anyway? If you want to talk about serious scandals, discuss BCCI or ELF. There isn’t evidence that McCain did anything unethical, let alone illegal on this. But drudge up 20-year old trash if that makes you feel better.

Not from what I’ve read.

I said a bit worse, not a ton worse.

They had majority support, just not supermajority support.

Which wasn’t enough to get them nominated, without employing the nuclear option. Are you actually suggesting, given the luxury of historical hind site, that this was a good alternative???

Given the 2006 election, it’s definitely a good thing for the Republicans that they didn’t got that way. It would have already come back to seriously bite them in the ass.

You will all do as you see fit, as I expect you to.

I fully expect the Leftists to do what Leftists do.

I can completely foresee that McCain will continue to do what he has been doing with increasing regularity since 2000 — screwing Conservative America.

You can play the Faithful Ho and help him screw us.

My greatest hope will be that the remaining Republicans and conservative Democrats will see the folly of Hillaboma’s agendas and do their best to block those plans from coming into actual law, just as the Dems did so effectively while they were in exile. (a hard-corps minority cannot enact its own legislation, but can effectively block a lot of it from being made into law)

I choose not to help him to screw Conservative America.

That is all.

I would never announce that I was going to sit down with the president of Iran, … Raul Castro… Those kinds of things, frankly, are a product of inexperience.[/quote]

Whistler:

As written it was intended to keep the little guy out of politics. Sure I can run meaningless ad the week before an election but I can’t (through a coalition of my friends) say not to vote for Mr. McCain.

Actually the biggest problem with the reform bill has been its uneven enforcement (or lack there of) by the FEC. I have no problem with reducing the power of organizations like the NRA, I know you do. Tough for these PACs, they did much more harm than good to our political process.

Tom Daschle and another said that the meetings took place. McCain didn’t deny it.

There is zero evidentiary value to this observation.

Well the Senate ethics committee said he did.

No, they didn’t, actually. Check the record.

What you’re doing there is making certain elites more powerful.

I don’t see that. Putting a limit on how much they can contribute dilutes their power, rather than amplifying it.

Well when it was being written was there any doubt that certain parties would get a pass while others were scrutinized closely?

Well yes there is doubt actually. What the FEC has been doing may be illegal, and is certainly under scrutiny by congress.

Telling the truth about McCain’s voting record is not an “attack”; it is something for him to explain to those whose votes he needs to win.

John McCain is the real deal. His speech last night was a brilliant delineation of principles that even Rush Limbaugh could understand – maybe not Willie Cunningham.

The Mopes of MSNBC once again pulled down their own britches – especially the Geek-in-Chief Olbermann.

http://hickeysite.blogspot.com/2008/03/john-mccain-johnmccain-runs-table-wins.html

Talk’s cheap. Can we look at his record please?

By that you mean, only if you get to cherry pick which parts to look at.

No, they didn’t, actually. Check the record.

How bad do you have to be for the rest of the Senate to notice?

Whister:

That’s his take on it. The other side is probably a bit worse.

Not from what I’ve read.

My point is you take the record as a whole and you use that to produce a portrait of the man, not just the parts you don’t like about him.

Not really. If he was 99% conservative, but wanted carbon taxes to “fight global warming”, I wouldn’t support him. That’s a very toxic issue for me. I think that “overall record” thinking isn’t all that valid, either. It’s like saying a dictator “makes the trains run on time”. The fact that he’s a dictator more or less cancels out all the good stuff, at least for me. Don’t accuse me of calling McCain a dictator now; it was simply and example. I haven’t ever said McCain was a closet liberal, btw; I just don’t like his positions on a number of issues. That’s a legitimate concern, not “cherry-picking”, as I explained before.

As far as Barack’s middle name is concerned, it’s fair game, period.

Fair enough, but Cunningham’s use of Barack’s middle name was infantile at best. I would not want my campaign associated with low-life behavior like that. I understand Cunningham is now supporting Hillary. They deserve each other.

In addition to this, we have the ascendance of blogs. Instapundit gets more daily views than CNN news for example.

Make that MSNBC. CNN gets slightly more than twice the daily visits as Instapundit currently (600,000 versus 250,000). Of course, many of CNN’s visitors are “channel flickers” (Fox News watchers tend to stay on channel more), so in terms of quality visits, CNN’s importance may be over stated.

However,what’s he ever done about entitlement reform?

Compared to entitlement spending, earmarks are a drop in the bucket, so that’s a very important question, IMO.

…the free press…

Only if you’re a Dem.

She is a commentator, not a spokemodel
for the conservative movement.

As a conservative, she’s an individual, not a part of a “movement”. She speaks for herself, and a lot of us generally agree with her, because the truth is the truth, no matter who says it.

I thought that the unions were exempted from McCain Feingold.

If I and my gun-nut buddies (NRA) choose to challenge an incumbent because of their anti-gun record that’s my business.

If we can’t do that our voice is diminished to the benefit of the incumbent.

Why is increasing the power of the free press over PACs a bad thing?

As if the press doesn’t have enough power.

Given the hundreds of comments critical of McCain, how many counter examples of “attack!” can you find.

How many comments has pp made on this subject, on this blog alone? More than that, every comment I have heard about Rush’s so-called “attacks” on McCain are also untrue. This may be hard for you to hear, but there are a lot of conservatives who McCain has offended over the past decade or so. He has it coming. All it means, as I said before, is that it’s up to him to win us over; his past actions have consequences. I never said he was all bad, only that the bad things he has done are significant, and must be addressed to get conservatives to vote for him.

As far as Barack’s middle name is concerned, it’s fair game, period. His policy about running away from the terrorists in Iraq is reason enough to suspect his allegiance to this country, IMO.
I don’t think a Presidential campaign is any place for a delicate flower who can’t take the abuse.

Seth, thanks for the info. Now is that just talk or has he used his position in the Senate to actually propose reform?

Actually the biggest problem with the reform bill has been its uneven enforcement (or lack there of) by the FEC.

Well when it was being written was there any doubt that certain parties would get a pass while others were scrutinized closely? The problem is that Congress and the President gave them the power to abuse.

I have no problem with reducing the power of organizations like the NRA, I know you do.

I disagree. I feel that the NRA does a good job sticking up for my rights. In the absence of the NRA more power is given to the incumbents in Washington and the press.

What you’re doing there is making certain elites more powerful.

To return to the gang of 14 issue that Carrick took exception to my characterization of.

Supporters of McCain say that he’ll appoint conservative judges. Why would we think that he’d support his nominees when he worked with Democrats to keep qualified conservatives off of the bench?

It seems that he did that in order to preserve senate congeniality rather than what’s right.

Foxnews?

I believe the liberal press has about 10 times the influence measured in audience than Fox.

ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN.

CBS news and the others because of their short duration can’t compete for influence with 24-hour news channels.

You’re joking, right? Compare the numbers; it’s no contest. The MSM gets the public in the morning, for the housewives, and in the evening when the families are clustered around the TV. What goes on the rest of the time is insignificant.

reforming Social Security all at once is probably politically impossible. All we can hope for is moving it in the right direction.

The problem is that some people are going to spend everything they make and then some. They get to the age where they can no longer work and they demand the provident supply them with a living.

I think what will happen around the time I reach retirement age is that those of us who did save will be told that we were stupid to do so. Social Security will be a full-blown welfare program.

Better put extremists like Ann Coutler aren’t conservatives.

Wrong. You are buying leftie media spin on Ann. She tells the truth about them, which is only as “extreme” as their leftward tilt actually is. They are trying to cut into her influence with personal attack, not facts.
I think you are in fantasyland if you don’t recognize that Dems never keep their agreements with Republicans; that’s a one-way street. They will do what is in the interest of their acquiring power, regardless of agreements or what’s actually good for the country.

If you choose not to vote for John McCain, then so be it. But do the rest of us a favor. Stop the repetitive attacks, character assassinations, negative record-analysis’ and predictions of doom-and-gloom which have been directed at the man for the last four month on this blog. The anti-McCain crowd has had its say. That battle is over.

The rest of us support John McCain for president and we will work hard to make it happen. If you’re not willing to help, then at least get out of the way.

DocDave is exactly right. Never have we had two democrats whose Alinsky-style socialist credentials and proposals were more liberal or further to the left. What Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will do in the next four years will be an assault on the Constitution, federalism and your personal liberties, the likes of which we have never seen… starting with the Supreme Court, extending to the war on terrorism and ending with gun control… all with the blessings of an expanded liberal majority in Congress.

If you cannot bring yourself to vote for or support John McCain, then vote to deny liberalism greater access to power.

DocDave is exactly right! Doesn’t matter whether you vote for John McCain enthusiastically, reluctantly, or only after getting blind drunk… We cannot allow the liberal-socialists to control two branches of government for the next 4 years.

Among the other horrors they will visit on our nation, the dems will add the 3rd branch to their unitary government by hustling 2, 3 or 4 libs onto the Supreme Court! It will be the New Deal all over again, complete with packed court!

Wither thou goest O once proud gop?

For all you anti-McCains who will not vote for him, I hope you will enjoy the next four years of Democratic rule cause I won’t.

if conservatives lose out it’s either because their ideas aren’t as good, or because they failed to use the correct tactics to sell them to the general population

Or their candidates suck!

Don’t sell the networks short. Their broadcast times are short but their influence is huge. Not as much as it used to be and at least the message is out there.

Well, there’s those ‘yes’ votes I mentioned above.

There are limits on how much a Senator (or even president) can accomplish.

C: I think the way to play McCain is to make him win over the conservatives to win the election(play “hard to get”), then hold his feet to the fire during his entire administration. We have to do the work, even to the extent of going after his opponent(because McCain probably won’t).

Good Lord. I make my last post on this blog just after midnight, and I get home to find 120 responses in my inbox, most of which pertain to this McCain quandary.

I’m going to have either quit responding or adjust my schedule to that of some of the retirees. (smiley face here!!)

One distressing note (I’ve yet to digest it all):

It appears to me that the pro-McCain crowd has accused those of us who take a differing opinion of some relatively vile acts. These people (I) are not extremist. I suggest some moderation in your discourse; something less vexatious.

What I have done is advocate caution with respect to this man. None of us have the ability to auscultate the candidates’ souls or their minds to determine how they will act on a wide assortment of issues. This is true of all of the nominees.

There’s eight months left…a lot can change…I’ll try and keep an open mind.

For all you anti-McCains who will not vote for him, I hope you will enjoy the next four years of Democratic rule cause I won’t.

The way I see it, we have three choices for Demoncrats, only two of them openly announce themselves as such. The third has a track record as a Demoncrat, and not on minor issues.

He got in by a major cash infusion by Soros (now there’s a trusted source) , free publicity by the MSM (he is the Leftist MSMs’ favoritest Republican dontcha know … doesn’t that tell you something?) , by cross-over voting by Liberals and Independents, and by having a split field of more Conservative opponents, to include the Huckster, who seems really to have been more of a stalking horse than a genuine contender.

I’ve given exhaustive reasons, backed up by historical references, why McCain is not to be trusted. I’ve provided proposed strategy, and shown precedents from previous administrations showing how this strategy, if properly exercised, can work effectively.

So…if you are tired of me telling you why Hell will Freeze Over before I vote for McCain, then quit pestering me to vote for him.

Deal?

But if you keep up shilling for a stealth Leftist, I will be there (from time to time, as I do have a day job) bringing up facts to un-stealth his Leftist Manchurian Candidate, give-America-to-20-Million-Illegal-Mexicans ass.

It appears to me that the pro-McCain crowd has accused those of us who take a differing opinion of some relatively vile acts. These people (I) are not extremist.

sally, you couldn’t be more wrong. At least some of the so-called pro-McCain crowd (me anyway) are saying is that you should consider the adverse affects of having the Democrats control our country which will be the case if McCain doesn’t get elected. Some of you have commented that McCain is no different from the Democratic candidates. If you examine the candidates stance on the issues, you will discover that is not true.

If McCain does not win the election you can say goodbye to Federalism and hello to Socialism. That really is your choice.

laydownSally! I feel your pain… indeed, I have considered quitting my day job just to keep pace with the mad rush on SA!

Doc,

sally, you couldn’t be more wrong

Are you saying I am an extremist??

Couldn’t be more wrong? Are you implying that there is no merit what-so-ever to my views?

That’s not a very good way to enter into a discussion.

And as little benefit that I gain from a continued line of queries, I must go on.

Do you, with your intimate knowledge of my views, believe I have not given any thought to these matters before us and have not examined the candidate’s issues?

I must assume then that you think I don’t like McCain because of his hair color or shoe size.

Some of you have commented that McCain is no different from the Democratic candidates.

Maybe so. I don’t know who the “you” is that you are refering to. John McCain is very different from the other candidates…that he is liberal-minded is also my opinion.

I hope the Dems lose, but I still won’t vote for McCain. He’s a wolf in conservative clothing and all of you can oo-rah! and pat each other on the back, but you will be bitching about him in one year. At least it took GWBush 4 1/2 years to thoroughly disgust me. McCain will trash conservatives from day one on his throne, but all of you Republicans will be happy because the Dhimmicrat didn’t win. Wow. Great strategy for happiness, that identity politics thing.

You nominally conservatives have given people like me grief over the past half-year over my decision not to vote by party, but I suspect that y’all will be the group that bitches the most when McCain stabs you all in the back. Congratu-fookin-lations! You did it to yourselves.

In return for this, he “gave away” judges who had no chance of getting confirmed by the Senate without engaging the nuclear option.

Well that was my point wasn’t it? Were these bad, unqualified candidates? If not they were worth fighting for.

DD, why did anyone screw around with this kabuki dance Primary crap for? RNC chose McC last January. Exactly why did we piss away all the money and effort on this pointless exercise? People do not want Juan McCain because he has repeatedly backstabbed us. And that is exactly what his Presidency will be, one long betrayal.

docdave,

If McCain does not win the election you can say goodbye to Federalism and hello to Socialism. That really is your choice.

That is too simplistic and you know it.

Unfair and misrepresentative of what the legislation has done/not done.

As written it was intended to keep the little guy out of politics. Sure I can run meaningless ad the week before an election but I can’t (through a coalition of my friends) say not to vote for Mr. McCain.

Reasonable criticism, though it’s not clear how he will respond as president on this issue. He’s shown the ability to be trainable.

If he makes a read my lips pledge to NOT do this before the election I’ll likely vote for him. Otherwise I think he’ll go ahead and do it to make friends with the lefties which is his MO.

Nothing unfair about repeating DNC talking points! You have any evidence that he considered switching parties, post it.

Tom Daschle and another said that the meetings took place. McCain didn’t deny it. If he denied it someone might come up with proof. However there’s no way to refute it when he says that he never considered it in his own mind. Clintonesque?

There isn’t evidence that McCain did anything unethical, let alone illegal on this. But drudge up 20-year old trash if that makes you feel better.

Well the Senate ethics committee said he did. This is a pretty big job and if he showed a lack of character 20 years ago it means something. This isn’t a case of something stupid someone did in college, he was around fifty years old at the time.

He has my endorsement (in two parts).